&quot;Atticus&quot;:3r760bby wrote: Whoaah! Didn't know I was back in English class! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->
I think it's fair to say you know what point I was making, even if I was using the word "semantic" in it's ordinary language guise.[/quote:3r760bby]
yeah well I think the word only has one meaning, the 'ordinary language' one is confused, that's what I was trying to point out <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->
anyway the reason I said that was I am still unsure as to what the difference between natural and unnatural as used in this discussion is supposed to be. Seems to me that marketers use natural when they really just mean "good" or "nice". It's just that what you said was just 'semantics' I actually thought was kind of interesting <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->
I think with marketing people gave 'no chemicals' a new meaning. I think when people say this they mean no artificial additives.
But craft beers do often contain additives that strictly wouldn't be needed to make beer. Like finings, you can make beer without them.
No chemicals in your beer is usually turning a blind eye to 'water treatments' too. It's a grey area.
As for traditional - in trading standards there is a guideline as to what defines traditional - ie a traditional family recipe is at least three generations or 75 years (I can't remember the exact definition).
&quot;sbillings&quot;:1agmlkke wrote: I think you are being far too scientific about this a_friend_in_mead. When people say "chemicals" in conjunction with a food product, they are talking about any kind of artificial additive. Not all additives are bad, but some are and some may prove to be in time.[/quote:1agmlkke]
Atticus
Up until the point I posted the above comment the discussion had been about what they m[i:1agmlkke]ean[/i:1agmlkke] by "chemicals" in that context and that is what I was clarifying. Do not mistake that for me agreeing that it is correct to use the word that way.
&quot;Atticus&quot;:1agmlkke wrote:
&quot;sbillings&quot;:1agmlkke wrote: Or the Porterhouse's own 0% Chemicals.
No water, no ethanol, no carbon dioxide...[/quote:1agmlkke]
You're getting into semantics then. As you've already said, it's generally accepted that when people refer to chemicals added to food they are talking about artificial/unnatural additives.[/quote:1agmlkke]
I know that people often use it in that way and certain marketing people are happy to perpetuate that. That does not make it correct and it most certainly does not make it "generally accepted". If they mean "artificial additives" they should say that.
&quot;noby&quot;:3f3gnvkw wrote: No chemicals in your beer is usually turning a blind eye to 'water treatments' too. It's a grey area.[/quote:3f3gnvkw]
You might argue that adding something which is deficient in your water, but is naturally occurring in water elsewhere, is not really an additive and gypsym, for example, is a natural substance.
" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->
" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->
