The problem is one of labeling: considering how much news coverage is given over to nutritional data, lawsuits, calories, HFCS and all the rest, it's not unreasonable for the general public to expect that "natural" means something when placed on a label. Naive? ...yeah, a little, but only if you're deeply cynical.

the Organic Consumers Association and others have long argued that the definition of "Organic" has been gerrymandered to the point where it largely means "higher-profit." Having spoken with several farmers, most of them don't grow organic produce unless they have a long-term relationship with one of the major agricultural buyers (cargill etc) because it's a definition that doesn't govern the most "naturally grown" produce anyway (and because it's a tricky label to get and keep, much trickier for a small producer than a large one).

The problem is one of scope: Ask a consumer if he'd consider an apple harvested from a tree sprayed with neem oil organic and after you explained neem oil, he'd likely say "yes." Ask him if he'd say the same thing about Alar and, after you explained alar, he'd likely say "no." 'k, fine. Now ask him if aphid control using soapy water is "natural" and he'll likely say "yes." Ask him if aphid control using methylisothiozolinone and phenoxyethanol is "natural" and he'll look at you funny.

Then you explain to him it's the same thing.

It's not an easy question, and not one that should be treated flippantly. I've seen no good solutions proposed by either side - I'm fond of food that gets processed less and would like to know I'm buying it before I open it up. Most natural corn chip? Fritos, at "corn", salt, oil. Least natural-looking chip? Fritos, at "what is this bizarre thing you extruded from household siding."

Still, SEE CHEERLEADERS BRAVING THE ELEMENTS!