is extensive. These additives are considered unnecessary and unhealthy by some people and they have successfully lobbied to force food processors to label products honestly. Those companies that choose not to be part of the "better living through chemistry experiment" have every right and should be congratulated for providing foods without additives.

The differences between whats labelled "organic" and whats not are very very small.

Just as 'plasma' means something different to a physicist and a biologist.

'Organic' means something different to a chemist than a consumer. 'Natural', in the context of foodstuffs, actually has no legal definition, and should be completely ignored as it is often used merely as a marketing device.

That being said, I think that genetic modification of food (hybridized or DNA modification) will eventually be a science that ends hunger and possibly solves myriad other problems. But we have to get beyond corporate greed first.

40 years ago. Now people producing 70s style organically grown food have to put "pesticide/herbicide/GM/hormone/antibiotic-free" on the label.

"Organic" and "Natural" have become mere corporate weasel words.

The natural label is a little annoying since often the foods are anything but natural

here than a semantic debate over whether or not all foods are natural because they are organic. For instance, GM seed patents confer increasingly potent political and economic power into the hands of agribusiness. Cross politicization by GM crops opens farmers to legal actions for patent infringement. Sterile seed technology, designer pesticides and herbicides designed to increase GM crop yields may rapidly accelerates the rate of adaptation by disease organisms and pests. Increasingly, they raise concerns over increasing the possibility of certain cancers in humans. I don't know whether or not these issues should raise too much agricultural, biological or medical concern, but they certainly should raise political ones. Increasingly, countries are seeking to ban GM crops. Whether they should or not is debatable. That I should be able to know how the food I purchase was produced is not. Whether or not that determination is made by independent or captured government agencies should be of great concern.

food as containing GMO ingredients. US corporations argue that such labels are a barrier to trade, and the US Trade Representative then argues the Cargill/Monsanto/ADM position at the WTO and tries to secure anti-labeling rules in our FTAs.

A new farm next door advertise similar entertainments, but it's "Organic." The signs are massive, and, yes, offensive.

"Love Your Kids! Buy Organic!"

Ugh.

Matter of fact: they are part of the work or final product of many industries and governmental agencies, they serve a needed informational purpose, they are part of safety and also help to develop and maintain a given brand name. Otherwise there's no need for any of these agencies or department, including marketing, and the corresponding jobs. I think so.

So one issue might be the reliability, trust, or accountability needed by a community engaged in commerce, and even more important in essential items.

I agree that 'natural and organic' is not really defining with precision how these items are grown, so that probably should also be clarified.

The questions and concerns about GM food go along with the need to preserve the ecosystems, since you don't want to have a single clone taking over, via the standard pollination, to then find out that it can be wiped out.
Also with the possible differences in the modifications, artificial or not, affecting the end product nutritional value, and safety. It is a fair question. I don't know the details, so I would rely on the seal of 'safe', and on the reassurance of it.
The IP/patent system criticism is because it might lead to monopoly of genes present in existing species, but IP system is fair in that it rewards effort and investment, plus it documents what is going on and made available to the public. It will depend on what that system really does for the public. I don't know if it has even contributed, if it is respected, etc.

You tell us.

The issue is that what it requires to be labeled "organic" or "natural" is poorly regulated, not to mention poorly defined.

People that have grandiose ideas of "organic farming" because they have a couple of tomato plants in their backyard garden.

People really think that farming and gardening are the same.

This is not true with the term "Natural", so here is where caveat emptor takes precedence, as the term may or may not indicate what matters to the consumer. Until the FDA devotes time, money and attention to combat corporate greed your annoyance will continue unless you take matters into your own hands and read the ingredient labels.