On wholesome food

“Made with 100% Australian breast chicken”. This claim, from a leading fast foot company about some new wrap they’ve come up with, is very strange. To what does the “100%” refer? Putting in a number, “100%”, suggests that it could be less than that, say 50% or 75%. The first possibility is that we are being patriotic by buying chicken that is 100% Australian. No dual citizenship chickens, no permanent-resident-but-not-real-citizen fowls or birds that don’t like Vegemite have been used. Perhaps the “100%” qualifies “breast”. Only chickens with real breasts have been used; no silicone implants allowed. Finally could the product be anything other than 100% chicken? There have been some strange experiments in genetics of late – you’re getting 100% chicken here, no dogken or turkiken or chickmouse or anything like that.

An immediately adjacent ad, strategically placed during morning TV to help me lose weight by making me nauseous at the very thought and unwilling to eat anything at all, suggests that the benefit of the omelette on offer is that it was “made with real ingredients, such as eggs.” If  ‘real’ ingredients are a feature of the product, perhaps there are alternatives on offer from inferior competitors. Perhaps some ingredients are mere memories of ingredients; inferior in every way to the writhing, shining, oozing, real ingredients currently available. Perhaps they are ingredients that are yet to be – eggs bought on the futures market that have yet to be laid but are, nonetheless, included in today’s breakfast by accountants with a grounding in accruals and a bad drug habit. The mathematician in me also considers the possibility of imaginary ingredients – ingredients that exist only as theoretical constructs with very little relationship to reality. Eating them would have negligible impact on your waistline but could suck you through a vortex into a universe of fractal dimension if you had too many.

I’m also dubious that a “freshly cracked egg” is a guarantee of quality. Some jokes, especially the ones you get on email circulation at work, are freshly cracked but they are certainly not new … or wholesome.

“Hormone free chicken.” How that, I doubt. Chickens have hormones. I have a rooster about three doors down as evidence. Or had – maybe the fox I bought has finally done his job; I’ve been able to sleep in the last few days (for the record, I have no idea what he says but a very good idea of what he eats). Anyway, I think they mean

 “Chickens to which we have not added any unnatural hormones (a.k.a. body building supplements, protein shakes, strengthening agents or cough medications).”

In short – chickens that have never been part of a Tour de France team. I’m glad they’re not trying to sell me chickens on roids because that’s illegal. Any kind of hormone additives fed to chickens are illegal. If this is a recommendation for a product, then I think we could go further with such slogans as:

“Second hand cars – guaranteed not stolen”

“Arsenic free apples – safe to take from strange old ladies”

“Lead pencils – no, not really”

“Wedding rings – won’t turn you into an untrustworthy, photophobic little greeby guy”

“Refrigerators – 100% CFC free”

I’ve seen that last one around a bit. CFCs have been illegal in the developed world for nigh on twenty years. It’s like promoting your product by telling you it’s not made with asbestos or doesn’t include DDT.

Finally, I’m not convinced that “organic” is a noteworthy or distinguishing quality when it comes to fruit. Is it possible to come up with an inorganic banana?