"All-Natural" is a Meanless Term...

   Nope. Sorry. I can’t get away from the food topics. Not yet. The more I read about what I eat, the less I want to eat it. For now, I’m going to focus on the term “all-natural,” which I recently found out can be slapped onto any product in the US without meeting any requirements at all! If asked about it, the producer might say part of it was grown in the earth at some point in time, which might be technically true,  but that it is “all-natural” is little hard to swallow after the massive amount of processing the average foodstuff goes through.  “All-natural” Chicken? That poor bird could easily have been genetically modified, feed ground-up pieces of other animals, injected with saline solutions during packaging, and still be considered “all-natural”.  The same could be said of cereals (“fortified” with vitamins and usually smothered in sugar) , veggie burgers (contains MSG), coca-cola (once made from the coca leaf, also the source of cocaine),  and nearly anything else found in the grocery store.

Even Twinkies (or whatever they're called now)
could be considered "natural" food.

I do want to point out that in other countries, “all-natural” does require some regulation, and that in America the term “organic” actually has some requirements that must be met for the food in question to qualify.


   But you know what? I don’t understand the obsession with all-natural food anyway. I know the term is supposed to conjure up images of wild grown crops, free range livestock, and farmer’s living in peace with Mother Nature,  but you know what I think of when I think about “all-natural”? Forests. Wild jungles. The deepest depths of the sea. Places untouched and unspoiled by the greed of man. That’s “all-natural.” And do you know what you would find in places like that? Poison Ivy, venomous snakes, wild beasts, the deadly fugu pufferfish, all of which have MUCH more of a right to be called “natural” than plants and animals that have been domesticated to the point that I have to question what kind of creature they would be in the wild. (Seriously, when was the last time you thought about an UN-domesticated cow or chicken running wild in the woods?) Remember, not everything in nature is good for you, though I’m sure someday it will still end up in your food...

Go ahead! I dare you to F*****g eat me!

   Besides, when you get right down to it, “all-natural” has no real meaning, because everything is natural. Everything in the universe is a part of nature, including (despite our best efforts) humans.  We do anything and everything to hide the fact, but despite our cars, factories, computers, and fake vomit, we are a part of nature, as is everything we create. Go ahead and try to argue. We either evolved from apes (Evolutionists) or were created along with the Garden of Eden (Creationists); either way we came from nature. (For the record, I take a neutral stance on that particular argument, so I figured I’ll let you choose the side you like.) If a bird builds a nest, or a beaver builds a dam, most would agree those would count as part of nature. Just think of humans as advanced beavers.

Some more advanced than others...

Anything we make, be it a toilet, high-fructose corn syrup, or denim pants, is still a part of us, and by extension, a part of nature.  And unless you’re making Levi’s soup or have some Soylent Green in your pantry, none of those make good food. 

   As always, I would like to thank you for listening to the mental flotsam I’ve presented here, and I would like to dedicate this post to that immortal master of fooles and sages, George Carlin, who has inspired my thinking in strange and wonderful ways, and I'm sure will continue to inspire many generations to come. His comments about the meaning of "natural" are what inspired me to write this post. Farewell, and may the forces of evil become confused on the way to your home.