<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Fight over synthetic ingredients splits organics community]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by elibeck</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/organics/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:30:44 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/organics/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Weakening organic standards with our dollars<p>I find this really troubling, if expected. One surprising thing, which isn't covered in this <br>
story, is that WHOLE FOODS is lobbying for these<br>
changes. Well, I guess it's not surprising, but<br>
it sure is depressing.<p>
Check out this from the Organic Consumers Association:<br>
<a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/release092705.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/release092705.cfm<p>
I've never really trusted Whole Foods, and don't<br>
shop there more than a few times a year... but lots<br>
of my friends do. I hate the idea of people building these companies up only to see them lobby against <br>
our interests.</br></br></br></p></a></br></p></br></br></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Weakening organic standards with our dollars<p>I find this really troubling, if expected. One surprising thing, which isn't covered in this <br>
story, is that WHOLE FOODS is lobbying for these<br>
changes. Well, I guess it's not surprising, but<br>
it sure is depressing.<p>
Check out this from the Organic Consumers Association:<br>
<a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/release092705.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/release092705.cfm<p>
I've never really trusted Whole Foods, and don't<br>
shop there more than a few times a year... but lots<br>
of my friends do. I hate the idea of people building these companies up only to see them lobby against <br>
our interests.</br></br></br></p></a></br></p></br></br></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by cmello</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/organics/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:51:39 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/organics/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>another illusion shattered</strong></p><p>Here I thought that when I bought something that was labelled "Organic", it was 100% organic. Now I find out I was just another one of those suckers born every minute.</p><p>
Except for the small independent farmers who are truly 100% organic, obviously this organic labelling thing is just another corporate scam to get people to pay more for something than it is worth. </p><p>
"100% Organic" should be reserved for products with no artificial ingredients used at all, at any point in the production of the product. &nbsp;Everything else should be labelled "Organic Lite" or "Contains Organic blah-blah Ingredients"; something that gives us poor sucker consumers some idea that the thing has additives in it that are NOT organic. </p><p>
I wonder if there have been any allergic deaths from people eating something they thought was 100% organic but contained or was processed by the very additive they were trying to avoid due to an allergy. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>another illusion shattered</strong></p><p>Here I thought that when I bought something that was labelled "Organic", it was 100% organic. Now I find out I was just another one of those suckers born every minute.</p><p>
Except for the small independent farmers who are truly 100% organic, obviously this organic labelling thing is just another corporate scam to get people to pay more for something than it is worth. </p><p>
"100% Organic" should be reserved for products with no artificial ingredients used at all, at any point in the production of the product. &nbsp;Everything else should be labelled "Organic Lite" or "Contains Organic blah-blah Ingredients"; something that gives us poor sucker consumers some idea that the thing has additives in it that are NOT organic. </p><p>
I wonder if there have been any allergic deaths from people eating something they thought was 100% organic but contained or was processed by the very additive they were trying to avoid due to an allergy. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by onlyme</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/organics/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:04:16 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/organics/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>synthetic vs artificial</strong></p><p>If the article had not used the word "artificial" synonymously with "synthetic", then the article would have had merit. &nbsp;As it stands, the whole issue has been completely disregarded and is simply an opinion without any basis. &nbsp;There is not one bit of information about what qualifies as "synthetic" and up for debate and that which is "artificial" and can never be "organic".</p><p>
I agree that this issue is a valid one, but you've just created a huge layer of confusion over the whole thing.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>synthetic vs artificial</strong></p><p>If the article had not used the word "artificial" synonymously with "synthetic", then the article would have had merit. &nbsp;As it stands, the whole issue has been completely disregarded and is simply an opinion without any basis. &nbsp;There is not one bit of information about what qualifies as "synthetic" and up for debate and that which is "artificial" and can never be "organic".</p><p>
I agree that this issue is a valid one, but you've just created a huge layer of confusion over the whole thing.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by gchx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/organics/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:08:03 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/organics/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Artificial and synthetic?  What do you mean?</strong></p><p>Throughout the years, I have asked about xanthan gum and ammonium bicarbonate and I've always been told that they were natural substances from nature. &nbsp; How is it that they are now artificial and synthetic?</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Artificial and synthetic?  What do you mean?</strong></p><p>Throughout the years, I have asked about xanthan gum and ammonium bicarbonate and I've always been told that they were natural substances from nature. &nbsp; How is it that they are now artificial and synthetic?</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by onlyme</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/organics/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:28:23 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/organics/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>xanthan gum &amp; baking powder -<p>synthetic, well, xanthan gum maybe, but neither is artificial. I was taught that synthetic is like for like (eg. rose geranium for rose) and artificial is not (eg. vanilla (plant) and vanillin (artificial vanilla) a petrochemical).<p>
xanthan gum<p>
<a href="http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/bacteria/Xanthomonas_campestris.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/bacteria/Xanthomona
s_campestris.html<p>
Xanthomonas campestris is a plant pathogen that causes black rot in certain plants and weeds<p>
Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris is grown commercially to produce the exopolysaccharide xanthan gum, which is used as a viscosifying and stabilising agent in many industries.<p>
as for baking powder <p>
<a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/question57.htm" rel="nofollow">http://science.howstuffworks.com/question57.htm<p>
Baking powder is normally made of three different parts: <p>
An acid <br>
A base <br>
A filler of some sort <br>
All three need to be dry powders that can be mixed together. For example, baking soda (a base), cream of tartar (an acid) and corn starch (the filler) are three common ingredients<p>
ask Umbra did a piece on baking soda<p>
ammonium carbonate<br>
<a href="http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/2004/0904CC.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/2004/0904CC.html<p>
According to the ubiquitous "Food Lover's Companion" by Sharon T. Herbst, baking ammonia is a chemical leavening agent that is considered "the precursor of today's baking powder and baking soda." It has also been known as ammonia bicarbonate, ammonia carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate and hartshorn in various circles and at different points in time. Traditionally, baking ammonia was a by-product of hartshorn, which used to be obtained by grating or calcining the horns of harts, which in modern times we know as male deer. </p></a></br></p></p></br></br></br></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>xanthan gum &amp; baking powder -<p>synthetic, well, xanthan gum maybe, but neither is artificial. I was taught that synthetic is like for like (eg. rose geranium for rose) and artificial is not (eg. vanilla (plant) and vanillin (artificial vanilla) a petrochemical).<p>
xanthan gum<p>
<a href="http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/bacteria/Xanthomonas_campestris.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/bacteria/Xanthomona
s_campestris.html<p>
Xanthomonas campestris is a plant pathogen that causes black rot in certain plants and weeds<p>
Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris is grown commercially to produce the exopolysaccharide xanthan gum, which is used as a viscosifying and stabilising agent in many industries.<p>
as for baking powder <p>
<a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/question57.htm" rel="nofollow">http://science.howstuffworks.com/question57.htm<p>
Baking powder is normally made of three different parts: <p>
An acid <br>
A base <br>
A filler of some sort <br>
All three need to be dry powders that can be mixed together. For example, baking soda (a base), cream of tartar (an acid) and corn starch (the filler) are three common ingredients<p>
ask Umbra did a piece on baking soda<p>
ammonium carbonate<br>
<a href="http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/2004/0904CC.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/2004/0904CC.html<p>
According to the ubiquitous "Food Lover's Companion" by Sharon T. Herbst, baking ammonia is a chemical leavening agent that is considered "the precursor of today's baking powder and baking soda." It has also been known as ammonia bicarbonate, ammonia carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate and hartshorn in various circles and at different points in time. Traditionally, baking ammonia was a by-product of hartshorn, which used to be obtained by grating or calcining the horns of harts, which in modern times we know as male deer. </p></a></br></p></p></br></br></br></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>