The introduction and assimilation of ultra-processed food as an integral part of our food chain has brought with it a host of arguments, concerns, and complaints about the legal responsibilities of food companies. To be clear, this piece is not one of them. Instead, the purpose of this piece is to adopt a fresh perspective on the nuances and humor of our little predicament.
You have no doubt seen the labels: glistening plastic packages proudly presenting maxims such as “all-natural,” “farm-fresh,” “ingredients you can recognize and pronounce,” etc. These labels are slapped on all kinds of processed foods and, with the help of an earth-toned color palette, consumers believe they are making the healthier choice. This phenomenon has been criticized for years, as the public has urged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create stricter parameters for the use of these terms. The public’s complaints, as of yet, have been unsuccessful. This pushback applies especially to the label “all-natural,” which has a legal definition looser than untied sneakers. However, rather than dive into all that drama, let’s take a step back and just admire the absurdity of what is actually happening here.
Believe it or not, there existed a time when all food was natural. The “natural-ness” of food was so absolute it was considered, well, part of its nature. At this point in time, someone attempting to sell you “all-natural” food would be akin to a stranger passing you an opaque bottle of “not-poison” and telling you to drink it. As we have descended into the age of genetic engineering, pesticides, and mass manufacturing, the average “natural-ness” of food has indeed dropped. It is only because of this that we now see food companies declaring their products as definitely, 100%, not at all tainted with the effects of the notorious ultra-processing. This spectacle is what I have deemed the moral relativity of ultra-processed food.
In a more general sense, moral relativism indicates that what is considered right and wrong is not bound to a universal set of principles but rather in the context of setting in society. I argue that moral relativism applies not only to ethical principles but to a subject a little closer to the heart (well, the stomach). As the quantity of processed foods has been augmented in our society, once irrelevant qualities have now come to the forefront of the battle for consumer confidence. Maxims such as “farm-fresh” or “made with real [food item]” only generate benefits when a large portion of other food options are not considered that way. This may seem obvious when stated, but really, have our diets degraded so much that suddenly food that is projected as “natural” seems especially virtuous?
In any case, I am not arguing for more stringent definitions in the FDA’s absurdly lengthy list of food legalities. I am strongly of the opinion that you and I can tell the difference between natural and processed foods. Neither am I asserting that we should abstain from consuming ultra-processed foods. It seems to be an unavoidable part of living in our modern age. I am, however, suggesting that next time you rip into a new box of “made with real cheese” Cheez-Its or down some “naturally flavored” Mott’s fruit snacks, be sure to take a second and smile at the ridiculousness of food needing to be advertised as “real”.
