# The "Natural" Effect. Pet (and human) product peeves!!



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AftZshnP8fs

This video cracks me up, but anytime I see the word "Natural" on human or pet products, now I cringe LOL. 
And barns LOL 

Ha! 

Also, the pet version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWklDeHz1Xc 

My cousin is in marketing, and she constantly thinks up slogans and spins to make items appealing to consumers. 

Discuss


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

Can't watch the videos here at work so I'm just assuming they are poking fun at the idea that natural = good/healthy. I totally agree, drives me crazy all the time. Nature will kill you pretty damned easily and quickly. All natural is NOT a selling point to me at all.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Me too. Also having some training in chemistry, I just can't take the "organic" label seriously. Like, in France they have an "Organic" certification for sea salt. I can't even.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Me too. Also having some training in chemistry, I just can't take the "organic" label seriously. Like, in France they have an "Organic" certification for sea salt. I can't even.


My husband is a chemist. He has periodic rants about 'organic'. And laughs a lot.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

Poison ivy is often organic....*snort giggle fit*


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

CptJack said:


> My husband is a chemist. He has periodic rants about 'organic'. And laughs a lot.


Haha... "Periodic rants". lol.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Haha... "Periodic rants". lol.


>.>


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Didn't watch the videos. 

I agree that natural doesn't always mean safe. And that the USDA/FDA do not regulate the use of the word "natural", so it means nothing in the US. That's more of a regulation oversight than anything. 

But it seems like a lot of people who make fun of those who try to avoid certain chemicals/ingredients just totally dismiss the idea of trying not to get poisoned by your food. Because the pesticide companies have such a good track record of not trying to poison us, I guess :/. Organophosphate poisoning is fun!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I think it really comes with education, and frustration at how few people realize what organic does and does not mean. It does not mean they do not use pesticides, or herbicides, or fertilizers. It means they do not use synthetic ones. Except when they do.




> Under US federal organic standards, if pests and weeds are not controllable through management practices, nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, "a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases.


Organic on a label means, basically, NOTHING.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

N


CptJack said:


> I think it really comes with education, and frustration at how few people realize what organic does and does not mean. It does not mean they do not use pesticides, or herbicides, or fertilizers. It means they do not use synthetic ones. Except when they do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This! All this. Plus I'm not afraid of the oh so scary GMOs either. Never buy anything purposely listed as organic.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Any time Natural comes up I think of this incident

Prior to a conference on some new dog flea product, some women sitting at another table talking about they only use 'natural' products on their dog. A guy who was standing next to me at the bar leans over and says, "Ricin is natural and I wouldn't feed that to my dog. Not everything natural is safe." I raise my glass of drink and say, "I don't know if any of this in here drink is natural but I hope it gets me through the night and this guy's speech." He chuckles and walks away. ....and that was my introduction to the speaker of the night!


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm always amused by people who avoid <cue ominous music> chemicals. Um, everything is a chemical. You know what's in your apple cider vinegar? Chemicals! Acids, even.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Also didn't watch the video. Not much bandwidth here and not a big data allowance. There is a US definition for natural . . . it includes most petfoods. From:
https://thesciencedog.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-nature-of-natural/

What natural is: The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), the organization that sets pet food ingredient and labeling definitions, states that *a pet food manufacturer can include the word natural in a product’s brand name or as a label claim if the food has been preserved using only non-synthetic (i.e. naturally-derived) preservatives. This means that the food cannot include artificially produced compounds such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), tert-butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ), or ethoxyquin*. Instead, naturally-derived preservatives such as tocopherols (vitamin E), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), citric acid, and rosemary extract are used. In today’s pet food market, this is not a high bar to clear. Starting in the 1980’s, consumer pressure to eliminate the use of ethoxyquin in pet foods was followed by a general trend away from artificial preservatives. Today almost all pet food manufacturers produce at least one product line of foods that are preserved without synthetic compounds and legally carry the “All Natural” claim.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

cookieface said:


> I'm always amused by people who avoid <cue ominous music> chemicals. Um, everything is a chemical. You know what's in your apple cider vinegar? Chemicals! Acids, even.


 Aaaaaahh! Acid! I'm dyiiiinnngggg. I'm sick of all the hoopla over GMOs. People think that crops are being injected with green radioactive slime or something.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I have one issue with GMOs and that has to do with the effect on the farmers and 'trademarked' crop. They're forced to buy new seed from teh supplier every year, which creates some issues. This isn't universal, but it kind of bugs the crap out of me. Good business model, but I like farmers and supporting them.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> I have one issue with GMOs and that has to do with the effect on the farmers and 'trademarked' crop. They're forced to buy new seed from teh supplier every year, which creates some issues. This isn't universal, but it kind of bugs the crap out of me. Good business model, but I like farmers and supporting them.


 Yeah I don't necessarily support GMOs because of that reason, but a lot of people seem to think that the crops themselves are unhealthy.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

Poison ivy, rattlesnake venom, and bubonic plague are all perfectly natural. Better living through science, I say.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I have one issue with GMOs and that has to do with the effect on the farmers and 'trademarked' crop. They're forced to buy new seed from teh supplier every year, which creates some issues. This isn't universal, but it kind of bugs the crap out of me. Good business model, but I like farmers and supporting them.


That's my issue with GMOs. The science is super cool and I can understand the concern over potential long-term issues, but really the issue is the business model.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

cookieface said:


> That's my issue with GMOs. The science is super cool and I can understand the concern over potential long-term issues, but really the issue is the business model.


Yeah, and I have no idea why I said good business model. It's not. I think I meant 'good way to make money, crappy business model' and my fingers go away from me. 

The science IS neat, and I have no issue with thinking the food's unhealthy. Just... really crappy for farmers.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

Definitely a crappy business model. I recently did a report for school on Monsanto the agricultural biotechnology giant and their lack of ethics and harm they are doing to small local farms.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, farmers don't like Monsanto but they're kinda stuck with them.

I have some concerns about GMOs, especially cutworm resistant. If it makes bugs' guts explode, what does it do to our guts? Granted, we eat a lot less of it relative to our weight, so it shouldn't explode us, but I do wonder if it causes some kind of low-level inflammation. I do NOT trust that that all findings from their research have been made public. They kind of have a bad track record for that kind of thing :/. And of course Roundup-ready has caused its own set of issues. The science is fascinating but I don't know that I actually want to be a guinea pig in their experiment.

I live 50 feet from a corn field. Now Monsanto will probably sue me for inhaling their patented GMO pollen .


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

jade5280 said:


> Definitely a crappy business model. I recently did a report for school on Monsanto the agricultural biotechnology giant and their lack of ethics and harm they are doing to small local farms.


I agree. Monsanto sucks. But this has nothing to do with the "Natural" label on dog food. That label only guarantees (weak guarantee 'cause there's no enforcement) that the food doesn't contain artificial preservatives. Lots of complex issues here but they don't fit the labels very well. Eg, the most common GMO is roundup-ready crops (Monsanto's cash cow). There is a body of evidence that the roundup-type herbicides have long term problems (both ecological and chemical) On the other hand, by allowing no-till agriculture they help increase soil carbon storage and help with both erosion problems and the greenhouse effect. A GMO designed to permit farming on saline or drought-prone regions is going to have different effects . . . and one that improves the protein content of a rice crop will have an entirely different set of intended and unintended consequences. It would be nice to KISS. But, unfortunately, the issues of nature, natural, and GMO's are not simple.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, farmers don't like Monsanto but they're kinda stuck with them.
> 
> I have some concerns about GMOs, especially cutworm resistant. If it makes bugs' guts explode, what does it do to our guts? Granted, we eat a lot less of it relative to our weight, so it shouldn't explode us, but I do wonder if it causes some kind of low-level inflammation. I do NOT trust that that all findings from their research have been made public. They kind of have a bad track record for that kind of thing :/. And of course Roundup-ready has caused its own set of issues. The science is fascinating but I don't know that I actually want to be a guinea pig in their experiment.
> 
> I live 50 feet from a corn field. Now Monsanto will probably sue me for inhaling their patented GMO pollen .


We may not be affected by it the same cutworms are. Sort of like dogs and chocolate - we can eat tons and have an upset stomach; dogs can eat tons and have serious medical issues.

Also, I wonder if "round-up ready"-type crops are contributing to the creation of resistant pests that will need more and more potent pesticides.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

cookieface said:


> Also, I wonder if "round-up ready"-type crops are contributing to the creation of resistant pests that will need more and more potent pesticides.


Roundup ready is very definitely contributing to evolution of roundup resistant weeds. Well documented . . . no one disputes this. Effects on insect or disease pests are indirect, and probably minor.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

sandgrubber said:


> Roundup ready is very definitely contributing to evolution of roundup resistant weeds. Well documented . . . no one disputes this. Effects on insect or disease pests are indirect, and probably minor.


That's pretty much what I meant with "pest" being a more generic term. If we are creating crops so that we can dump pesticides / herbicides on them, will the pests / "herb" eventually become resistant? I wasn't implying that an herbicide would affect insects or species it wasn't designed for.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

cookieface said:


> That's pretty much what I meant with "pest" being a more generic term. If we are creating crops so that we can dump pesticides / herbicides on them, will the pests / "herb" eventually become resistant? I wasn't implying that an herbicide would affect insects or species it wasn't designed for.


I'm sure they will become resistant eventually. "Life finds a way" as they say.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

I wish there was better laws or legislation to stop the 'natural' theme that is so popular these days. It is hard to try and sort thru all the propaganda marketing ploys. It is like the cage-free or free range chicken marketing ploy. Images of grandma's chicken roaming the yard. Nope not that at all 

My grr!!! when did a salad get more expensive than burgers and a fries!


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

luv mi pets said:


> I wish there was better laws or legislation to stop the 'natural' theme that is so popular these days. It is hard to try and sort thru all the propaganda marketing ploys. It is like the cage-free or free range chicken marketing ploy. Images of grandma's chicken roaming the yard. Nope not that at all
> 
> My grr!!! *when did a salad get more expensive than burgers and a fries*!


Subsidies, my friend, subsidies (specifically for corn and soy).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yep, farm subsidies. Nobody could afford meat without it. It costs way more to raise a cow to slaughtering age than what consumers pay. Corn and soy are heavily subsidized. I think wheat and milk too. But not a lot of wheat and milk production around here so I know more about corn and soy. 

And, yeah, weeds have become resistant to Roundup. Lots of weeds now. It's not something anybody denies. 

Well, "natural" and "organic" might not mean much but they do mean some things are excluded. It's not "we sprayed it with every pesticide and herbicide known to man and then filled it with synthetic preservatives" at least.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Natural on labels actually mean literally nothing. There are NO regulations relating to its uses. You can call anything in the world natural if you want to, regardless of how it was grown, raised, or produced, or with what methods or materials. 

Organic does have some. Mostly that they tried natural methods before going to synthetic, but something. Natural does not. You should be aware of that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cookieface said:


> We may not be affected by it the same cutworms are. Sort of like dogs and chocolate - we can eat tons and have an upset stomach; dogs can eat tons and have serious medical issues.


 BUT humans are affected by theobromine too. That's why we like chocolate . It would take a pretty large dose to be dangerous to a human, and it's unlikely we'd eat that much chocolate. But it would still be toxic in a large enough dose and does have a stimulant effect in small doses. I'm pretty sure everything has some kind of effect on us even in small doses, what that effect might be will show itself eventually.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div6&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7#se7.3.205_1601 - List of allowable synthetics used in organic farming. 

Not claiming that organic might not be better, but it really doesn't mean what most people think it means. Especially not when it comes to how things are labeled (made with organic ingredients, for instance, means that they can be 30% non-organically farmed).


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Willowy said:


> BUT humans are affected by theobromine too. That's why we like chocolate . It would take a pretty large dose to be dangerous to a human, and it's unlikely we'd eat that much chocolate. But it would still be toxic in a large enough dose and does have a stimulant effect in small doses. I'm pretty sure everything has some kind of effect on us even in small doses, what that effect might be will show itself eventually.


Huh, I wasn't aware of that. Is that also true of other substances that are typically identified as toxic to dogs (and cats), but not humans?


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

This is why I boggle at people who down any old supplement/vitamin/tea without doing research or paying attention to dosage (which is highly variable even if you're trying to do it right). The idea that things are safe because they're 'natural' is scary. Cyanide's natural, too... many favorite fruits, nuts, and veggies contain it.

As an aside, the high chance that I'd wind up working for Monsanto (or a golf course) is one of the main reasons I'm re-evaluating my plant genetics background and hoping to broaden my academic horizons in the coming years. I also find it kind of upsetting that what Monsanto's doing (with all its issues) is causing issues with GMO projects that are humanitarian - golden rice is the main one that comes to mind. Could save thousands of children's lives, but it's a GMO so it's clearly evil.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

cookieface said:


> That's my issue with GMOs. The science is super cool and I can understand the concern over potential long-term issues, but really the issue is the business model.


It's a "good business model" to make money, but not an ethical one, IMO.

Yup yup yup. GMOs are so cool. And they're not ALL awful... like the rice modified to produce betacarotine to combat Vitamin A deficiency in developing nations. It was developed by two university professors in Europe and funded almost entirely through money from the Bill Gates foundation. One of the co-creators, Ingo Potykus, has spent most of his career trying to GM common crop plants in developing nations to increase their productivity and nutrition with the end goal of alleviating undernourishment in poor regions. The "Golden Rice" was further developed by a corporation, but only under agreement with the original creators that the final product would be available to those who need it for what the rice without the GM technology would cost and they are allowed to keep the seeds and use them to plant next years crops, etc.... It has been patented, but I think that is mainly so that other companies cannot make a profit off of the product/technology that Syngenta is providing for no/low cost.

But ya, obviously GMOs are evil.

ETA: Haha, didn't read to the end or see Daysleepers post about Golden Rice.... the technology just has so much potential, but people (a lot of people who are well educated but with absolutely no background in genetics or any field that is related) just... are terrified of it.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Also, can I just say, the whole "Pesticides cause cancer" thing is way blown out of proportion? I understand some of the concerns (because farmers who use pesticides in HUGE doses, on a nearly daily basis do show slightly elevated risks of cancer), but like... just as an analogy for the levels of exposure: the amount of pesticide farmers are exposed would be like the exposure to cigarette smoke that your chain-smoking grandma experiences, and the levels that the average person who eats commercially grown produce and washes it is exposed to would be like inhaling second hand smoke when you go visit your chain-smoking grandma's for Christmas once a year. Its not just the substance, but also the _levels of exposure_ that matter. But people seem to have a really hard time with that.

Also, talking about boycotting something because it causes increased disease risk in the people that work to produce it, we should all boycott microwave popcorn.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides all have different problems -- because they target different organisms with different physiologies. There's a wide range of chemicals used in each class of chemicals. Eg., insecticides vary from nerve poisons to compounds that target the hardening of an insect's exoskeleton, or substances that ants or termites will bring home to the nest and kill the queen and larvae. Sometimes the long term effects are very different and far removed from the immediate effects. DDT's effects on bird populations are the best known example; in that case, the big problem wasn't initial dose but bioaccumulation. Small doses that accumulate can do great harm. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is by far the most commonly used pesticide on earth. There's now some evidence that glyphosate or the byproducts of its break-down, accumulate in the soil. The chemical chain of events, passed through soy and corn messes up the human (potentially also dog) gut flora, with many and possibly serious consequences. It may turn out that the worst consequence of GMOs is indirect -- through leading to extremely wide use of glyphosate as an herbicide. All the more disturbing because weeds are developing resistence to the stuff and farmers are now turning to combinations such as glyposate + 2-4 D, which are potentially much more toxic.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

gingerkid said:


> Also, can I just say, the whole "Pesticides cause cancer" thing is way blown out of proportion? I understand some of the concerns (because farmers who use pesticides in HUGE doses, on a nearly daily basis do show slightly elevated risks of cancer), but like... just as an analogy for the levels of exposure: the amount of pesticide farmers are exposed would be like the exposure to cigarette smoke that your chain-smoking grandma experiences, and the levels that the average person who eats commercially grown produce and washes it is exposed to would be like inhaling second hand smoke when you go visit your chain-smoking grandma's for Christmas once a year. Its not just the substance, but also the _levels of exposure_ that matter. But people seem to have a really hard time with that.
> 
> Also, talking about boycotting something because it causes increased disease risk in the people that work to produce it, we should all boycott microwave popcorn.


Completely agree with you! I find the hype about gluten, wheat, and grains humorous. Because some people have issues, they must be *bad*. Yet, I never hear that peanuts or shellfish are toxic because some people have allergies.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

cookieface said:


> That's my issue with GMOs. The science is super cool and I can understand the concern over potential long-term issues, but really the issue is the business model.


Exactly. Monsanto and the like are killing small farmers and their ethics are a joke.

And yeah, at the store I work at "Atlantic Salmon" is 6.99-8.99/lb and "Natural Atlantic Salmon" is 12.99/lb. People think the "natural" is wild caught. No, it just comes from a nicer farm with less hormones/antibiotics and fancier food. Same with Tilapia.

I think I would buy "organic" chicken and etc. if by organic they meant free range (of course that doesn't mean much either) followed in the spirit, not letter of the regulation.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

We're pretty lucky in Canada; hormones and antibiotics use are much more tightly regulated than in the US, especially in dairy cattle, so I feel much less bad about buying conventionally raised beef and diary. The only time we spend money on "organic" or free-range meat is when we buy it directly from the farmer, who we know directly.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

What makes something toxic is the dose and the susceptibility of a particular species, not the specific chemical or substance. The amount of water it takes to poison you is huge, the amount of cyanide it takes to poison you is very small. Give your labrador a Tylenol by mistake and it will probably survive; your cat, not so much. I can take Vicodin for pain with no side effects, it makes my co-worker extremely sick. 


Literally everything is toxic if you are exposed to enough, with "enough" being dependent on your species and individual susceptibility within your species.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

Really the basis of where i was headed on this thread was that companies slap "Natural!" on the label and people think it's some kind of special. Even if it says Natural! on the front, I'll still be looking at the ingredients to make sure.


----------

