Ok, here's a rant I've been on lately...the marketing use of the terms "All Natural" on food and other "health care" products. The truth is, All Natural really doesn't mean anything. It is an unregulated term that just draws in unsuspecting consumers. Here you are, thinking you are doing the right thing, and you pay the extra money at a store like Whole Foods, and buy something that says "All Natural" and you figure you've done the right thing for your health, your family, and the planet. But when you dig a bit deeper, you find out that your product contains toxic chemicals, anti-biotics, GMOs, and other nasty stuff...anything but All Natural.
After being fooled again this morning at a reputable San Francisco butcher shop, I have vowed to ONLY purchase products that have these labelings :
"Non-GMO" -- also for feeds that fed to "organic" and "Free range" poulty and meats.
"Pasture Raised" -- This is the real test of free range...not the actual words "free range" which just means they have access to the outdoors...which includes a hole in a barn wall that leads to a pen on the outside.
"Bio-dynamic" -- A stronger statement than "organic" and originating from the works of Rudolf Steiner..an amazing man who knew a lot, and lived a long time ago.
"No Antibiotics" -- under any circumstances...meaning if a flock, herd, etc., has a sick member..they remove the member rather than treat with anti-biotics.
"No Hormones" -- meaning none injected, and none in the feed.
This is my new list to follow....and definitely, I'll avoid ANYTHING that says "All Natural" because it is meaningless. Think about it...if a vendor could use any one of the terms I have listed above, they would. When they can't, they use "All Natural."
James E. says:
Good point Greg. While terms like "pasture raised" are not regulated, if you are purchasing from a local farmer's market, or a local vendor, you'd have the opportunity to ask what that means to the purveyor - typically, animals that have been raised on pasture for a majority of their life, eating grass and bugs in the pasture, which is what their bodies are intended to digest. "No hormones" and "no anti-biotics" are pretty self-explanatory...you can't use those terms if they are not true. Natural means nothing. "Biodynamic" is also one of those terms that can be meaningless too, as you've pointed out, however, if you are up in Napa or Sonoma, and talking with a wine grower about it, they will explain the difference to you about biodynamic and organic wines...it's really quite interesting, and relevant to the health of the grapes, and the people consuming them.
At the end of the day, it's all up to you, the consumer, to understand your labels, and to not be fooled by fancy phrases without meaning. My post is intended to point out that marketing labels don't necessarily tell you anything (and could be used deceptively, particularly in the green marketplace), and the best course of action is to educate yourself on the right questions to ask growers and ranchers. Even when terms are regulated, like "free range" they are meaningless, as there are so many loopholes that are used now by commercial egg producers.
Buy local, get to know your vendors, and ask questions about how your plants and animals are being raised. Nothing substitutes for that.
James E. says:
Greg, always nice to find common ground, even amongst disagreement. I do concede that biodynamic practices do indeed seem bizarre. The father of biodynamic is Rudolf Steiner, creator of the Waldorf Schools, and of Anthroposophic medicine - both worthy endeavors. I don't purport to be an expert on biodynamics, but I have seen some pretty impressive studies that show plants growing in conventional, organic, and biodynamic environments, and the biodynamically grown ones are substantially more robust. That doesn't constitute proof of course, but there does seem to be something going on with this farming practice. Rudolf Steiner seemed to have insights that were uncommon, even for our times. Maybe there is someone out on SustainLane that has more info on studies that have been done to prove or disprove the biodynamic results?
To your larger point, I wholeheartedly agree. The Green movement, despite the hype of today, is still a fledgling movement that is still striving for mainstream acceptance and adoption. Outlandish and non-inclusive theories that can't be substantiated, but that are self-serving, do act to move the movement off-center to the left. It's best when we can keep the engine of sustainability humming to the tune of strong local economies, healthy families and communities, and positive, inspirational actions. There's certainly enough of that in "green" to make a day of.
One of my pet peeves about the shift toward green, is that I find some of the most destructive actions within the green movement come from "insiders" attacking each other over the details, while missing the larger picture where we do all agree...if we're all on-board with general direction, then our disagreements about the details of that, while important, should not be used as a wedge to derail the greater purpose. I think one of the historical problems of the environmental movement dating back to Silent Spring, was all the in-fighting that ultimately slowed sincere efforts for change.
Adam W. says:
Hey you two - I am a little confused. The original post is about which terms are verified and which ones aren't, ie "organic" means something has to have been verified while "all natural" does not. You both then go on to talk about how "biodynamic" doesn't mean anything because anyone can use it, but I am curious as to whether or not that is true. There is in fact a biodynamic certification agency: http://www.demeter-usa.org/. If someone labels something as "organic" and it is not in fact certified organic, they can be sued. Is this not the same thing with "biodynamic?"