![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was in the grocery store yesterday. Came across two interesting sights.
Just inside the door, I was greeted by this:
(Click here for larger version)
The shopping cart is indeed full of fried chicken, and the thing propped up behind it is indeed a human-sized stuffed yellow bird costume with its head falling off. Its hands also fell off (the stuffed red gloves are on the floor, but you can't see them in this pic). What you also can't see is that the bird has pastel blue rings around its eyes for some reason. Eyeshadow, perhaps? If so, it clashes with the red bow tie.
My first thought on seeing it (and the reason I had to take the pic): OMG! SOMEONE FRIED BIG BIRD!
Later, as I went down the baking aisle, I came across this scientific marvel:
It's a bag of sugar that's "Certified Carbon Free"! Amazing, since the chemical formula for sucrose is C12H22O11. In other words, each molecule of table sugar contains 12 carbon atoms, 22 hydrogen atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Which means it's about 42% carbon by weight.
Now, I know. They're trying to say it's "carbon neutral," meaning that they take measures like planting trees (or paying someone to plant trees) to offset whatever carbon emissions are produced in refining and shipping the sugar. (A practice which is nice, but of somewhat dubious effectiveness in making these things guilt-free.) But that's not what they actually said. What they said is "Carbon Free Sugar."
That tops "organic" food in my book. For the record, "organic" technically refers to carbon-based molecules, the life forms which rely heavily on those molecules and their amazing versatility (i.e. all known life on Earth), and things derived from or otherwise related to those life forms. The primary alternative to organic life is the theoretical possibility of silicon-based life, since silicon shows a similar versatility when it comes to molecular bonds.
They're trying to redefine the term to fit some vague definition of "all-natural," and they've had enough time for the idea to take root, but last I heard there were still no reliable or meaningful standards for what "organic" foods really are (other than more expensive and hopefully probably generally - though not necessarily entirely - free of things like pesticides and unnecessary antibiotics). But I still can't help but look at "organic" bananas and wonder if they're trying to imply that the bananas on the other display are made with silicon.
ETA: Went to the Carbon Fund website. It had a picture of a "carbon free" bag of sugar. I dropped them an email suggesting that they may wish to rephrase. Be interested to see how (or if) they respond.
Just inside the door, I was greeted by this:
(Click here for larger version)
The shopping cart is indeed full of fried chicken, and the thing propped up behind it is indeed a human-sized stuffed yellow bird costume with its head falling off. Its hands also fell off (the stuffed red gloves are on the floor, but you can't see them in this pic). What you also can't see is that the bird has pastel blue rings around its eyes for some reason. Eyeshadow, perhaps? If so, it clashes with the red bow tie.
My first thought on seeing it (and the reason I had to take the pic): OMG! SOMEONE FRIED BIG BIRD!
Later, as I went down the baking aisle, I came across this scientific marvel:
It's a bag of sugar that's "Certified Carbon Free"! Amazing, since the chemical formula for sucrose is C12H22O11. In other words, each molecule of table sugar contains 12 carbon atoms, 22 hydrogen atoms, and 11 oxygen atoms. Which means it's about 42% carbon by weight.
Now, I know. They're trying to say it's "carbon neutral," meaning that they take measures like planting trees (or paying someone to plant trees) to offset whatever carbon emissions are produced in refining and shipping the sugar. (A practice which is nice, but of somewhat dubious effectiveness in making these things guilt-free.) But that's not what they actually said. What they said is "Carbon Free Sugar."
That tops "organic" food in my book. For the record, "organic" technically refers to carbon-based molecules, the life forms which rely heavily on those molecules and their amazing versatility (i.e. all known life on Earth), and things derived from or otherwise related to those life forms. The primary alternative to organic life is the theoretical possibility of silicon-based life, since silicon shows a similar versatility when it comes to molecular bonds.
They're trying to redefine the term to fit some vague definition of "all-natural," and they've had enough time for the idea to take root, but last I heard there were still no reliable or meaningful standards for what "organic" foods really are (other than more expensive and hopefully probably generally - though not necessarily entirely - free of things like pesticides and unnecessary antibiotics). But I still can't help but look at "organic" bananas and wonder if they're trying to imply that the bananas on the other display are made with silicon.
ETA: Went to the Carbon Fund website. It had a picture of a "carbon free" bag of sugar. I dropped them an email suggesting that they may wish to rephrase. Be interested to see how (or if) they respond.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
For the record, "organic" technically refers to carbon-based molecules, the life forms which rely heavily on those molecules and their amazing versatility (i.e. all known life on Earth), and things derived from or otherwise related to those life forms.
well, only if you're talking chemistry. the technical meaning in medicine is different, ditto the meanings in biology, philosophy, law, and yes, gardening. they're all well established.
if any one is technically the most correct, it's probably the medical or biological; the chemistry meaning is pretty recent; i think it only came along in the late 19th century.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Second picture: LOL!! I would give anything to be a fly on the wall at that meeting in which they discuss your email. Guy who received the email: So... I called this meeting because of an email I got. It's... well, I'll just read it...
I'm really curious about their response -- I hope they respond so you can share it!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And yeah, "point and laugh" was pretty much my reaction. Which is why I immediately had to take a picture. So that I could post it and virtually point and laugh. ;)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject