• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Mysterier

'Natural' versus 'synthetic' versus 'organic' versus 'chemical'.. my head spins.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
85,003
Is there a simplistic way someone can break this down for me? Isn't *everything* natural? And chemical?
Whether we're talking foods or psychoactives or anything else, ppl seem to use these in ways that contradict or muddy other uses, and very typically come across as screens for when someone cannot elaborate the specifics of what they mean (not saying that cynically by any stretch, just something i noticed- like, i tend to hear them used less, by ppl who're really in the know about hte subject they are speaking on)

I know that, say, for foods, "natural" labelling is a marketing tool w/ almost zero actual substance behind it. With "organic" foods, there's a lot more stringent rules as to what is / is not, though I'm still foggy how a lot of the rules are "organic", instead of just "probably safer/smarter"

This is NOT trolling it is honest.
 
Breaking down the food industry is incredibly complicated.

When we say 'organic', that could mean a government regulated set of standards by which it was farmed. Organic can also refer to an item's chemistry, in particular, organic, or carbon-based molecules. So I suppose that although technically the food that you eat, even in its most basic state, is made of chemicals, the idea really is which chemicals you want to put into your body. Also, you should be mindful of the processes involved in getting these foods to your table, what effect they have on the food itself, the environment, the economy and just about everything else. You also need to decide how important each of these factors are to you personally.

My basic opinion is this, getting caught up in words like 'natural' and 'organic' is almost worthless when compared with a basic knowledge of the food industry, locally, nationally and internationally.
 
i'm not concerned about the variations in just that specific area tho, this is more of a linguistic question (am actually already familiar w/ what things do / do not qualify as "organically labelled" food)
i guess i mean that i wonder why, say, "chemical" tends to have negative connotations, or 'organic' has positive ones (aside from food, like "oh it the acting was so natural, it came through so organically")

am i the only one who sees little rhyme or reason for ppl using these terms most of the time? I feel like 9x outta 10 they're thrown around to try and hint or imply things in a vague way, in a manner that is barely semantic.

(as an example, when i used to work in the nutrition industry, lay people would very routinely say things to the effect of "well, i don't want a product that is all chemicals", or "i only like to consume/use/do 'natural' things")
 
Yeah I guess what I am saying is that the language/linguistics of food is relatively insignificant. People who put importance on that as an aspect of their diet are not looking in the right places for nutritional information. So I guess that no, you are not the only one who sees little reason for people using these terms. They are highly ambiguous and used increasingly as manipulation in place of information.

Also if you have concerns about the relative safety of something commonly referred to as a 'chemical', it would help to know more specific chemicals that you are talking about. In that way they could be discussed based on their health merit.


(also this might get better responses in Healthy Living)
 
Because the question is vague and more about the terms than food in specific I think I will leave this here for now. OP, if you would like it over in HL just let us know.

As for the question itself. They are terms that are very convenient to use in industry as they allow companies to play to people's preconceived notions of what is being implied, without having to make any truthful statements.
 
IMO the term natural is meaningless. All those things, which any sense of the word, exist, exist in nature. If they diddnt, they'd be supernatural. If so, they'd be outside the laws of physics. At least thats my take from a scientific POV.

Not everything is chemical, but aside from energy, we don't encounter non chemical things(Degenerate matter, free subatomic particles) in normal life.
 
no plz leave it here, was thinking ST or here but ST was more for the ppl that'd see it than subforum appropriateness.

Food was only mentioned to give an example, that's actually an area i had to study in some res.econ class at one point and know allll the games for packaging labels/claims in this regard. Am just speaking to the linguistics, rangrz is dead-on for what i'm getting at. 'Not everything is chemical', true, but when ppl say "no not that, it's chemical", the alternative they would be okay with is 'chemical' too.
/rangrz, your pessimism on ppl may not allow you an enlightening answer, if one even exists, but can you see any "proper" usage for the way ppl use these, or is it always ppl just using vague/gray approaches to things they are unable to specify? IE, instead of "i don't want to consume a vitaminC product that is a novel molecule created 2yr ago and untested, and think i prefer the track-record of ascorbic acid", it comes out as "I need some vitamin C's but i only want something natural, and no chemicals"

AHA! just heard someone on tv say "something something there's just such an organic chemistry to it" in reference to an act or performance not a physical thing! GGGGggrrfrfrrrrrr!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd accept if they said they'd prefer one chemical over another. At least they're grounded in reality to some extent by recognizing that ascorbic acid is also a chemical. If they said no chemicals, I'd ask if they preferred quark-gluon plasma or neutron degenerate matter. :p
 
wouldn't go near it, we all know atomic is synonymous with 'radioactive' is synonymous with 'cancer causing'
/lol lay folk.
 
bmxxx said:
wouldn't go near it, we all know atomic is synonymous with 'radioactive' is synonymous with 'cancer causing'
/lol lay folk.
Click to expand...

yes, but sir, this atomic bridge is in fact made of the highest quality sub-atomic particles from around the world. it is very safe. i give you good price.
 
So, you're saying it was.actually made at a brass factory in Gujarat...
 
Alright. Off topic to the extreme. Closed. PM with any questions / concerns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top