Untitled Document
Is it true that all the CEOs and lawyers at big food
corporations get their job training from flimflam artists at carnival
sideshows? These executives are always trying to twist language,
pervert meaning, and distort laws in various crass commercial efforts to
flimflam consumers. The latest example is a push by food giants to mess
with something as basic as “natural” chicken. Most of us would
think that any bird with that label has been raised in, well, a natural
environment on a diet of such natural feedstuffs as grain, meal, and bugs.
We would also assume that the bird has not been doused, injected, or
otherwise juiced up with chemical additives or other ingredients. We would be wrong. For example, Tyson Foods Inc., the
biggest chicken wrangler in the land, pumps up its
“all-natural” birds with water, salt, preservatives, and other
ingredients. Indeed, as much as 15 percent of the retail weight of
Tyson’s all-natural cluckers is said to be derived from such
additives — yet its corporate honchos are telling food regulators in
Washington that Tyson’s product is still pure enough to be labeled
“all-natural.”
Tyson is not the only trickster. Lawyers from Sara
Lee Corp. have recently petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to
let it use the “natural” label on its Hillshire Farms brand of
meats, even though the meats have had a chemical preservative called sodium
lactate added to them. Yes, this chemical is derived from a plant, but its
appearance in the meat is not exactly a natural occurrence —
it’s an industrial process. Shouldn’t the term “natural” be
applied only to food products that are, you know, natural? To stay informed about the
flimflammers, connect with the consumer-watchdog group Center for Science
in the Public Interest at 202-332-9110.
Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator,
columnist, and author.
This article appears in Nov 15-21, 2007.
