Natural Food/Product = Good Food/Product... what the hell??

I’ll refrain from posting my own thoughts, as I have a slight (snicker) bias. You see it everywhere… the word “natural” used to sell products. Why does everyone automatically assume that something that is natural is good? And, by implication, everything man-made is bad? This frequently ties in with so-called secrets of non-mainstream cultures, be it the Native Americans, the Chinese, etc. I can understand some sort of hesitance to pop the newest pharmaceutical, as their side-effects read like a laundry list of “Things Quixotic does NOT want.” But why is this hesitance missing when Late-Night Informercial depicts a wonder product used by the Ancient Incans that will help you drop 70 pounds in 3 days?

Thoughts please.
Quix

Naturally. Though I would agree that if you want to eat a random chemical chances are if its natural its less toxic.

So, if I get bit by a insanely poisonus snake, or nibble on nightshade, I can die knowing that at least it was natural?

Unnatural products cause cancer. They’re bad for the environment, both in terms of production and disposal. They are harder for your body to process than natural products. They are used as cheap substitutes for superior natural products. They lurk in the body for decades after their consumption. They have mysterious and unforseen effects that are not acknowledged by mainstream medicine and are therefore untreatable except by practitioners of natural healing arts. They trigger vague but nonetheless life-threatening immune responses. They go straight to your brain and cause behavioral problems such as sleeplessness, chronic fatigue and the urge to watch professional wrestling. They stunt (or possibly overstimulate) the growth of your children and lead to premature sexual maturation, hyperactivity or hermaphroditism.

Natural products cause none of these problems. Humanity once existed in a pristine state of prefect health and harmony with the environment before the evil unnatural products consipiracy began foisting its products on the population. bats eyelids beguilingly

“Humanity once existed in a pristine state of prefect health and harmony with the environment…”

OK, sure many man-made chemicals are bad for the body, but viruses also cause cancer and they’ve been around a lot longer than people and are pretty natural. Come to think of it, sunlight can cause cancer, although it’s easier to get over-exposed nowadays.

And if you do get cancer, what about designer anti-cancer drugs?

Many unnatural products protect us from the natural dangers that kept the life expectancy of our race down in the 20s and 30s up until recently. Cholera and disentery are quite natural, and were quite common ways to die (and still are in less developed areas of the world). Chlorinated water supplies do a pretty good job of eliminating these hazards.

Don’t get me wrong. Chlorine is a NASTY element, and can cause a lot of problems of its own. The difference is that it may give you a cancer that kills you at 70 years old, as opposed to a cholera infection that kills you at 6 weeks old.

Geez. . . I thought the “bats eyelids beguilingly” would be a sufficient sarcasm marker–not to mention that professional wrestling crack. Guess I’d better get out my big red “IRONY” stamp.

The sad thing is, you can probably find people who make statements like those in earnest. Except the pro wrestling one.

I thought i read somewhere that this is a myth. People didn’t drop dead at 30; life expectancy was so low only because of high levels of infant mortality. it might even have been answered by Cecil (?) but i can’t find it…

but don’t quote me. it’s early.

I never said EVERYONE died in their 20s and 30s. Not EVERYONE in the US now dies in their mid-70s. It is an average (I think median, might be mean). These days, you have a lot lower chance of dying at any point of your life from many infectious diseases. This doesn’t just affect infant mortality, but also adult mortality.

Arrgh… I agree, the people who buy into this line of thinking seem horribly gullible to me.

My boyfriend likes to buy “all-natural” food. I used to make fun of him mercilessly. “Dog shit is all-natural, honey - if I marketed that, would you buy it?”

ROFL, I used to say the same thing to my ex-fiancee, almost word for word. Just kind of funny.

I plan on doing some research on this later, when I have access to Scifinder at work, but I thought I’d throw my off-the-cuff thoughts into the ring now. I just got done talking to my roommate (M.S. in Food Science) about herbal supplements. I’d heard before that, unlike food, the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t strongly regulate herbs, supplements, etc. She confirmed this, and filled in some specifics. According to her, there are some stipulations about what you can market, and what you can claim about your product.

(1) I asked her if I could bottle mercury and sell it. She said that since mercury is known to be toxic, this is forbidden. Interesting side note, in the first half of the first millenium CE, Chinese rulers used to take elixirs made primarily from cinnabar, which is mercury sulfide. Let’s hear it for Ancient Chinese secrets! smirk

(2) I asked her if I could make a pill of sugar with a pinch of salt and sell it, claiming it has the typical herbal powers (e.g., improves your memory, increases your immune system, etc.) She said that since both sugar and salt have been extensively studied, to say the least, and have not shown these effects, I could not market this product.

(3) She said that the FDA does have some guidelines about what a pill maker can claim. She said she didn’t remember all the terms that a manufacturer can’t use, but, in essence, you can’t claim that a supplement WILL do something. I can’t say, “This extract of bat wing will cure your acne,” but I could legally say, “This extract of bat wing may help reduce acne.” I could make this statement without any evidence whatsoever.

(4) I asked her about pharmaceuticals, and she said that EXTENSIVE clinical testing is required. Ten year studies are not uncommon. For herbal supplements, she said that the FDA does the most basic studies to find out if a supplement is dangerous, although she couldn’t recall the exact standards of dangerous. She did say that something like loose stool or impotence is not considered dangerous.

(5) Finally, I asked her if the FDA is trying to muscle into the supplement market. She said that the FDA is overworked as it is, with pharmaceutical approval, and it has drawn a clear line in the sand. The current battle area is adding supplements to foods, e.g., making a breakfast cereal with echinacea in it. The FDA pounces voraciously on such cases.

Based on all that she said, I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason that various companies bottle up crazy, random shit and make fantastic claims about it is that they can! Pharmaceuticals are subjected to standards that no herbal supplement has even coming close to approaching. I’d wager (WAG) that 95% of these supplements would fail within the first stage of tests, and 4% of the rest would fail in later stages.

It just boggles me that people are so forgiving just because something has a label of “natural.” The only explanation I can come up with is this. Suppose you have Propecia next to RandomHerbalSupplement (RHS). Both are claiming that they can help you grow hair. Propecia says, because they have to say, that they can have some sexual side effects on men, such as less desire, lower sperm count, difficulty in maintaining an erection, etc. RHS says nothing of the sort, because they don’t have the foggiest idea! Even more, if they did do studies and found that RHS causes the same side effects, just more severe, they wouldn’t have to let the general public know. I’m sure RHS is going to cost less than Propecia… which do you suppose John Q. Baldy is going to choose? Does this explanation hold water, or is it too simple-minded?

In addition to nasty lists of mandated side-effects, synthetic drugs have a history that natural supplements don’t have. Thalidamide, anyone? (FTR, scientists now KNOW why Thalidamide went wrong… for the chemically curious, one enantiomer of Thalidamide causes the dreaded side effects, and the other entantiomer causes the desired result). If some Incans who used Echinacea 400 years ago experienced severe diarrhea, how the hell is the general public supposed to know?

I guess here are my specific questions:

A) I can understand consulting your physician before taking Propecia, Viagra, etc. The side effects are known, and they’re not entirely pleasant. But why the hell is this reluctance suddenly gone when the same man goes to buy Extract of Valerian?

B) If the FDA isn’t going to take up the flack on regulating this industry, who will?

C) I saw in GNC the other day “RNA/DNA pills.” Looking on the label, each pill contained something like 100 mg of DNA and 100 mg of RNA extracted from yeast. Ummm… how the hell am I going to eat bread, fruit, and about a million other things without getting nucleotides??

Quix

This is an important point. It’s probably a good idea to consult your doctor before you start taking anything, but if you’re on any prescription medicine and you want to take supplements, it’s very important to ask you doctor about interactions.

Case in point: St. John’s Wort, a popular herbal memory for mild depression, might reduce the effectiveness of birth control pills! :eek: Of course, if you’d asked your doctor about taking St. John’s Wort a couple years ago, (s)he couldn’t warn you about this interaction. Why not? 'Cause the study hadn’t been done yet! This isn’t as dangerous as some herbal/prescription interactions of course, but it certainly stuck in my mind, since I’m on the Pill and was toying with the idea of taking St. John’s Wort at one time. Cripes, how depressing is it to have an unplanned pregnancy?