There was recently a lawsuit against Capri Sun that argued it can't be labeled "All Natural" because it uses high fructose corn syrup, a chemical that isn't really "natural" in the way a layperson would use the term (chemically derived from corn starch rather than something that comes directly from a plant). The lawsuit failed, so now there's pretty much a precedent saying it doesn't mean anything.

This is exactly why I make it a point not to change my buying habits over a 'flavor of the week' marketing trend. Yes, being environmentally responsible is good, but I'm not going to buy your crap just because you claim it's "green".

@NatalieErin: You've missed missing the point. What I was saying is that there is more than 1 definition for the word organic. You appear to need a lesson in the logical use of the word "or". There is an inclusive or and an exclusive or. The fact that you don't know or understand the difference doesn't make me childish. It makes you unable to read and understand a post. So let me help you out. Dioxin is both an "organic" molecule b/c it contains hydrogen and carbon and again "organic" as it is found in nature as a "natural" product. Many molecules meet both definitions. THAT was part of the point. So you should RTF post and you'll quickly realize that you're chiding me for making the same point you do. Well done! LOL! Now.. I'm going to say this slowly so you don't get confused. Natural products (eg organic products) are not necessarily good for you soley b/c they are natural products. Now.. how hard is that for you to get? I even listed a few, Dioxin being one of them. You know how many composters like to put wood ashes in their compost as sources of potash? That's right sweetie... it contains the organic molecule Dioxin. Please feel free to look it up. So Dioxin is most definitely part of "organic farming". Sorry you were confused.

@kaceetheconsumer: This is what the USDA says:

Policy Memo 055 provides that the term "natural" may be applied only to products that contain no artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. Minimally processed products that do not contain these types of ingredients, such as fresh meat and poultry, will automatically qualify for the use of the term "natural" on product labeling.

[www.fsis.usda.gov]

My question is now: What's minimally-processed? I think they're allowed to CO the meat to make it pinker/redder, which IMO is sketchy. But CO is natural.

I'm so glad I got to see her and give her a hug before she went. It took her very fast.

Can we talk about those stupid bank ads for "Life Green Checking"? I can't remember the bank off the top of my head, but the ads just grate. Happy actors riding bikes and somehow intimating that because the bank offers online banking (and therefore you don't have as many paper checks and statements) that it's somehow "green." It is like the flimsiest premise ever.

@pecan 3.14159265: Argh, I mean to clarify...when it says "recycle" it doesn't necessarily mean you put it in the recycle bin. You can put it in the regular trash, and it gets siphoned off from the other things and the trash plant can use it to make more paper products.

@mbz32190: What it means is that paper is a recyclable resource and it's better to buy paper than it is to buy styrofoam, which is nonbiodegradable and can't be reprocessed to be used to make something else. It means that if you throw out a paper plate, it can be recycled and used in napkins or to make more paper plates.

Read the labels. They're the exact same stuff.

@guymandude: I think you've missed the point, actually. Bobert is saying that there is more than one definition for the word "organic" and, while those two definitions share a common root, they've diverged over the last (nearly) 200 years.

Yes, people do frequently allude that organic (meaning using organic farming/production methods) = good for you. And yes, that allusion is wrong. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the product is organic by the definition used by chemists. Like it or not, words can have multiple, unrelated meanings. Basing your arguments on conflating those two meanings is frankly childish.

And since when would dioxin be considered organic in the farming and production sense of the word?

@babyruthless: This is very true, but the crux of the matter is that ANYTHING can be organic depending on how deeply one delves into the definition of it. So, for all intents and purposes EVERYTHING is organic, so labeling anything as organic, or buying ONLY organic items is a fallacy, for the most part, in and of itself.

Which is why I buy only processed foods. I prefer to KNOW my food is unhealthy and potentially dangerous to the environment. Ha!

@pecan 3.14159265: Plus some of the organic stuff is just bad. I'll buy things from small farms, local, organic, etc. if it tastes as good or better than my conventionally manufactured option. But if it tastes crappy, then I'm not getting it, thanks.

Also, many afflicted with lung cancer (regardless of cause: radon, smoking or unknown) feel responsible and that others will be unsympathetic.

These numbers back up Florapaste as well, by the way.

[www.nationallungcancerpartnership.org]

@bobert: Dude... you totally missed the point. The point shouldn't have been missed by a doctoral student in O-chem. The allusion that is constantly and incorrectly made is that just b/c something is organic it must be good for you. Dioxin is "organic" in both senses of the word. 2ndly, carbon dioxide is NOT considered an organic compound. You should know that. And while there is no universally accepted definition for the word "organic" it is widely held to mean that at least 1 carbon and 1 hydrogen are contained by the molecule. So hydrogen cyanide is organic and I think even you would have to say that ingesting any would be a bad idea. And that's the point you of all people should have taken away from the post. And yes... vegans are (generally) wingnuts. Their reasoning is specious, whiny and wholly inconsistent with anything other than their diet. Just ask the next one you speak with if they are an autotrophic consumer. And if not how does it make their actions different from any meat eater in anything other than degree?

@GitEmSteveDave_♥'sRenegadeIrishman: Yes.. many drugs are derived from plants. Many soups are derived from plants. Potpourri is derived from plants. Ethnobotany is the mother of pharmacology. But it doesn't have the specificity of pharmacology. So let's not get confused about what's derived from plants. ;)

@RogerTheAlien: It's pretty easy for flour to be non-organic, if you use the USDA government's definition of organic agriculture as being produced without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. So if your wheat is grown with fertilizers/pesticides, then it is not organic. If you mean that it is carbon-based, then yes it is organic, and you are willfully ignoring the definition of "organic" when it comes to food labeling. Water and salt cannot be (unless I am mistaken) rated as organic or not--you needn't use organic salt in your organic crackers, but you must use organic flour.

I didn't know how old either use was; I'd always assumed the use of the term in agriculture was much newer than in chemistry. Never stopped me from buying organic things, since the standards governing organic agriculture are real and a good thing, but I'm glad to know when and where the word came from.

@RogerTheAlien: You should go through her shopping cart next time she's at the store and write "non" next to organic and see if she pitches a fit and throws everything out.

This is a good example of where motivations can converge. I happen to think trees can be managed as a renewable resource but if corporations can save money and energy can be saved by eliminating the process of cutting and processing wood for paper, printing a bill and mailing it to my house, great. If I also don't have to open a bill and just get notified when it arrives in my inbox and pay it without writing a check, stuffing an envelope, and licking a stamp (and paying for that stamp), not to mention filing or discarding the paper associated with the bill, that's better for me.

I recognize that almost anything a corporation does, green or not, is for the bottom line, and it is disingenuous for them to pretend otherwise; however, if something is good for a company, a consumer, and the environment, why look for the cloud inside the silver lining.

@pecan 3.14159265: I know...it's like, "Ummm, how can wheat/flour, salt, and water be NON-organic?" It's pretty simple. That's why I think it's fad-ish. I have a family member who buys eco-friendly and organic EVERYTHING. And, the sad part is, she's got a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses attitude. So, it's not so much that she's saving the environment or being healthier; it's that all this stuff is more expensive, so it lets her have some sort of bragging rights. She'd JUMP on those organic crackers BECAUSE they said organic and were more expensive.

Both uses of "organic" derive from the notion of "organisms" (living entities).

"Organic chemistry" originally dealt with chemicals only found in living organisms, which by and large contain carbon. The definition shift to it being the chemistry of carbon-containing compounds occurred in the late 1820s, when Woehler synthesized urea, which theretofore was only known as a waste product in urine, from inorganic reagents.

"Organic agriculture" can similarly be traced to 1840-ish. Famed chemist Justus von Liebig theorized that plants only needed inorganic, factory-created fertilizers like ammonia and superphosphate (which we now know to be wrong). So the traditional methods of fertilizing crops using organism-derived materials like manure and compost were called "organic", as distinguished from these new-fangled "inorganic" fertilizers.

So if you're tempted to yuck it up about the "vegan wingnuts" and their use of the term "organic"... speaking as an organic chemist who's on a quest for the perfect barbecued brisket, they have as much historical and technical right to the use of the term as DuPont or Dow Chemical.

@RogerTheAlien: I get really frustrated at Whole Foods sometimes because nearly everything is organic, with no alternative. Whole Foods bills itself as a healthy store, not an organic store. I expect to have some degree of variety! I was stuck buying organic crackers because their store brand was organic, and there wasn't a second option with the store brand. I don't care that my crackers are organic! If it means I save 30 cents, give me non-organic crackers!

@captadam: Well, I guess I can buy less baby powder and rat poision.

@summerbee: At least for food, there is a standard. Something is "natural" if it's been directly derived from animal or plant products. Something synthesized from several different chemicals is "artificial". Beats me how that might apply to drugs, though.

I've balked for years at the whole "organic" debacle. Dioxin is organic. Hemlock is organic. DDT is organic. There is nothing about "organic" molecules that make them any safer than non-organic or synthetic molecules (depending on what you mean by "organic"). Of course it's a common thing to run into the vegan wingnut(who still use fossil fuels, see the doctor when they're sick, get vaccines, use plastics.... I could go on forever) that thinks "organic" molecules are infused with the galactic karmic chi life energy that somehow makes a "natural" amino acid different from a synthetic one. And then, of course, when you ask how one can be distinguished from the other you're an asshole b/c you've made it plain just how ridiculous then whole affair really is. Herbal tea will not cure leukemia, Aids, the clap or stupidity no matter how intensely you want it to be true.

@GitEmSteveDave_♥'sRenegadeIrishman: Gah! In the time it took me to post MY rant, you posted yours, which is basically a better-written version of mine. Jerkface! ;-)

@bohemian: And, a lot of "green" products have super-ridiculous non-green packaging that almost undermines any concept of green the product is trying/does convey.

The thing that gets me is this whole semi-new need to buy EVERYTHING green. It seems like a lot of people are in a rush to be THE MOST eco-friendly person so they can brag about it or something without taking the time to actually realize the who, what, where, why, and how of the definition of "green". It's VERY possible to buy non-natural stuff that's made without damaging the environment; or to buy stuff that's not made from "100%" organic materials/ingredients, but still won't kill you/cause you to have flipper-children or harm anyone/thing in any way. It seems kind of fad-ish.

But what's really funny is that people forget this, and buy the same product over and over again and think it's better for the environment today, will cure breast cancer tomorrow, and helps reduce trans fats next week.

/insane rant

Are there any regulations yet for using the word "natural" on a product? Before long, we'll be seeing it on printed on stuff like Tylenol if .01% of the gelcap coating is derived from plant extracts.