If It's Good Enough For Nature, It's Good Enough For Me

Last night I was invaded by ants. Not just my home — me!

I went to the cupboard after dinner and grabbed my chocolate syrup for my ice cream. I immediately felt tiny little legs scurrying across my fingers. Then the pain. Yep, fire ants!

So I immediately went into action and cleared the cupboard of anything that would remotely attract ants. And, fortunately, I had a 50/50 mix of bleach and water handy and started to douse. I doused everything, the ants, their surroundings, the counter, fridge — everything!

But that's not my story. My story is; while I was clearing the cupboard there were certain things the ants weren't attracted to. Mainly the sugar free chocolate syrup. They didn't want it. The only reason I had it was I bought it by mistake. It tasted like crap so I just stuck it up in the cupboard for emergency use. You never know when you're going to need bad tasting chocolate syrup in a hurry — you know?

They were also drawn to the natural peanut butter on the shelf (the kind you mix — forever). Anyway, it got me thinking, if the ants like this stuff it should be safe for me. This tied into what I've always known about meat. If a dog smells meat and won't eat it, it's bad.

Which brings me to my point: If it's good enough for nature, it's good enough for me.
Animals and insects won't eat tainted, spoiled or over-chemically-saturated food. If they don't want it, why should I? Anything worth eating in nature is eaten.

More so, animals have a very keen sense about things. Like cancer sniffing dogs. Cats that can sense emergencies. Some animals freak out when an earthquake or other natural disaster is about to occur. The animal kingdom has been used for millennia by mankind for all sorts of things we now surrender to "modern science."

Of course I'm not advocating replacing your doctor for a dog, cat, ferret and jar of ants but there is real data that exists as to the validity of animals and their keen sense usefulness. This is not an attack on modern science either. I see no reason why the two can't co-exist.

The debate of chemically and genetically altering food has been going on for decades. Some is okay, some isn't. Nature has been cross pollinating and breed mixing for forever. It's not off limits, there's just limitations. What should be our measuring stick on this? I believe the animal kingdom. If they don't want it, leave it alone. After all, your body builds on the food you feed it. Like it or not, your body works the same as an animal's. It uses food to survive.

Don't get me wrong, I like a certain amount of junk food as much as the next guy (sometimes more). It was just an odd concept that I've always had in the back of my mind: If an animal wouldn't eat this, should I?

Just thought I'd share.

Now, I know there are those of you out there that will chime in with the fact that animals eat stuff they're not supposed to. Like a dog will lap-up antifreeze all day long. This is true. And this is not a hard and fast rule, just a concept to consider.

So next time you pick something off the shelf, ask yourself; would nature eat this? Or even, is there any nature in this at all?

Here's my passive-aggressive part: I love Twinkies. As many know, it's pretty much all chemicals. Here's the ingredient list:

From: How Stuff Works

Monoglycerides and diglycerides, which replace eggs in the Twinkie recipe, are compounds that act as emulsifiers. They stabilize the cake batter, enhance flavor and extend shelf life [source: Ettlinger]. A very small amount of egg is used to leaven the cake. Polysorbate 60 serves a similar function to the glycerides, keeping the cream filling creamy without the use of real fat. Hydrogenated shortening replaces butter, giving the cake some of its texture and flavor and prolonging shelf life.

Taste tests by flavor experts have revealed that artificial butter flavoring is used in the cake and artificial vanilla flavoring goes into the cream filling [source: Ettlinger]. Both flavorings are chemicals derived from petroleum.

From: Food Matters

Ever wondered what’s actually in a Twinkie? It’s a wonder it’s sold as food at all! Find out why it’s the poster child for Frankenfoods below and the key reasons why we’d never touch a Twinkie!

A single Twinkie contains 37 ingredients, but only 5 of them are ‘recognizable’. Flour. Egg. Water. Sugar. Salt.

Twinkies’ ingredients are manufactured with fourteen of the top twenty chemicals made in the U.S.

Wholefood ingredients have been replaced by chemical concoctions. For example, less egg has been used, as they’ve been replaced by monoglycerides and diglycerides - chemicals to bind fats and water-based ingredients, and extend the shelf life of the product.

It contains harmful ingredients that contribute significant risk to chronic disease including high fructose corn syrup (and 4 other types of sugar!) Yep there’s 5 types of nasty sugar in a Twinkie!

The unhealthiest kind of fats are lurking in there - hydrogenated vegetable fats (trans fats) which are simply awful for your health!

The vitamins, artificial colors, and flavorings come from petroleum.

The cream center contains absolutely no cream! Instead, it’s full of shortening - a cheap fat.

It also contains a small amount of sodium stearate - one of the most common ingredients found in soap! No thank you!

So many of the ingredients come from overseas including China, where there are hardly any regulations placed on their use.

Scary!

Twinkies really have no nutritional value at all. Stay away from them. I will continue to eat them... probably. See, passive-aggressive. My dog would eat them too. He's passive-aggressive as well. We're still in therapy.

art source: 1 2 3

references: 1 2