Comments on: Trying to be Green in a Red World

By: Stefanie

Stefanie — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:04:57 +0000

Randy, from a company’s financial POV, as sleazy as it is, it makes sense to exploit terms like “natural” when they can. If the consumer is led to believe that “natural” really implies what it means on the surface, they are going to trust that when a label says a product is “natural,” it’s not deceiving them. We have a trusting nature, overall, but we need to learn how to research and see through marketing ploys. Companies know how to take advantage of the consumer… look at sales, for example. All that is needed is a “Sale” or “Clearance” sign, and people will go in a shopping frenzy, whether or not there is an actual good deal to be had.

CGabriel, I find the whole HFCS fiasco ridiculous. Trying to claim it as “natural” is pure BS, to put it nicely. Now they are trying to discount the studies that revealed the mercury content in HFCS! Grasping at straws… It’s a wonder to me that every product that has an ingredient from nature doesn’t call itself “natural.” You mentioned lemonade… if everyone follows in the footsteps of HFCS, all lemonade should be labeled “natural.” They all have lemons, right? Sugar?

By: CGabriel

CGabriel — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:29:48 +0000

Stefanie has hit on a major issue with me: High Fructose Corn Syrup. In our society, saying something is a “four-letter-word” has become part of our vernacular; we know instantly what someone is referencing. By taking a bit of artistic license, I would submit HFCS is another fine example of a four-letter-word…or four-word-letter, as it were.

The very nature of HFCS never phased me until we had children. And when my wife became passionate about the environment and all things organic – all stemming from our little girls – she bought me a ticket to ride with her on the downtown express train.

It is utterly astounding that companies put this garbage in item after item, all under the guise that it’s “natural” as Stefanie deftly points out.

And moving laterally here, why do so many “natural” products – the ones that, ostensibly, are good for us – have ingredients I need to have explained to me from chemists here at the University of Minnesota?

Finally, a quick sidebar that speaks to this issue on a certain level: The last time I was back in New York City, the server at the restaurant we were dining at asked us if we’d like a glass of water. We said yes. He then responded, “Would you like bottled, tap, sparkling or flavored?” I just wanted…..water. Period. Similarly, when I go to the store wanting lemonade, and if the store doesn’t offer fresh-squeezed, why can’t I just get a bottle made from lemons, sugar and water? Or do all those other ingredients truly make the lemonade taste more…natural?

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:34:45 +0000

It seems this same issue re-invents itself on a on-going basis. As soon as we think we can trust a certain term related to a product, some corporation invents some “cleaver” way to exploit public trust, and perhaps public gullibility, by using the same term as a “marketing” gimmick. You can read whatever you want between those quote marks. They may stretch the meaning, or creatively re-interpret the generally accepted meaning of the term. And without specific guidelines, enforced by some regulatory body (government!), they can get away with it! Even when we think there are guidelines, they can still find ways to push the envelope, and basically deceive the public. The one universal axiom seems to be “buyer beware”! Never believe what you read on a label absolutely. Question everything! The consumer really has no other recourse except to their own diligence and awareness.