As I was grocery shopping the other day, one trend struck me. I noticed that many of the products, from fruit juices to hair products and even some insect killers, were labeled “natural.” To up the ante, some were proclaimed to be “all natural” or “100% natural.”
I thought that was funny. After all, many of them were in plastic or glass bottles, albeit the labeling was green. The brown of recycled paper is also a fairly common packaging color. More than one bag of chips, wrapped in plastic and aluminum foil were also made of “natural ingredients,” so claimed the labels outside.
What is natural? That is, what does it mean for a thing to be natural, and what does it take for that thing to be natural?
Before I go back to these questions, let us first examine the sentiment behind the “natural” label. The people who put those labels put them there because they thought claiming something is “all natural” or “100% natural” would give those products an edge over their competitors. Since more and more products claim to be natural, that’s probably true.
I’m guessing this is because, in many people’s minds, “natural” is synonymous to better, more nutritious, more healthy, or less harmful. “Natural” products are seen as simply superior. Alternatively, products that are not natural are seen as more dangerous, more toxic, more harmful, more unhealthy. After all, if a product is not natural, then doesn’t it mean it’s “unnatural”? A thing being “unnatural” already seems like an argument against it.
But aren’t many diseases natural? Chicken pox, small pox, measles, malaria, polio, parasitic infections, even most cases of cancer, aren’t these natural? How about rats and mosquitoes and the diseases they spread? Or disasters? Typhoons, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic explosions, asteroids colliding with the Earth, aren’t these natural, too?
For millions of years, almost everything that killed our ancestors were “100% natural,” from the venom of snake and spider bites to the poisons that they ingested from mushrooms or fruits. Heck, what could be more “natural” than death?
Let us turn that around by looking at a few things that can be considered “not natural.” We inject insulin on a diabetes patient. This insulin is often manufactured in the lab using techniques that involve DNA recombination. We vaccinate children to protect them from diseases, and we do this by injecting them with a harmless version of the cause of the disease. We take in food supplements to complete our nutrient requirements. We modify fruits and vegetables to make them bigger, tastier, and more nutritious. In special circumstances, we are advised to take antibiotics to kill bacteria that have infected us “naturally.”
We do so many things that are “unnatural” that are beneficial to us. In fact, if death and disease are natural, then isn’t opposing them unnatural?
So something being natural or unnatural is says little of its effect on our health. Some things we call natural make us healthier and prolong our life. Others do the opposite. The same can be said of things that are unnatural. If we really want to know if something is better for our health, we have to study its effects using science. If the science says it is safe or even beneficial, then it doesn’t matter whether it is natural or not.
But I think the contrast between what’s natural and unnatural is more problematic than their benefit and harm. It’s more problematic because what counts as natural in the first place?
At the root of the word ‘natural’ is the word ‘nature.’ To be natural means to be of ‘nature’, a word that came from the Latin natura. Natura can be translated to ‘in-born disposition’ or ‘innate quality.’ Today, we still say “comes natural” to you when you seem to be good at it without prior training. We also talk about the “natural inclinations” of people. (“It’s not in his nature to do that.”)
Our use of the word ‘nature’ to refer to forested mountains or pristine rivers and lakes is fairly new. The contrast between this “natural world” and the “artificial world” of people, buildings, roads, and other artifacts of civilization did not have any reason to exist for a long time. In fact, many cultures today, especially those of tribal peoples, still don’t make the distinction.
The Greeks were among the first to distinguish between natural and artificial. The traits that plants, animals, and other objects have when humans don’t intervene the Greeks referred to as physis. Natura is the Latin translation of the Greek physis. Both were applied to the tendency of smoke to rise (rising is smoke’s natural tendency) or rocks to fall (falling is part of a rock’s nature). When left alone by humans, the animals and plants of the forest will go about their “natural course.” This is probably the origin of our use of the word ‘nature’ to mean the state of the world untouched by human activities.
But aren’t humans curious and inventive “by nature”? Aren’t we, as a species, “naturally inclined” to find things out and apply what we know to create and invent? If so, then shouldn’t the products of human creativity and ingenuity be called “natural” too? But if they are, then what is left to be called unnatural?
It is sometimes convenient and easy to make the distinction between the natural world—the great outdoors and the wildlife found in them—and the world of people. Often, however, it is neither convenient nor easy. Furthermore, it’s not always helpful. Sometimes so-called natural products are superior, sometimes they are not. Natural does not always mean better, nor does it always mean worse.
The concept of what is natural is a powerful concept, but we shouldn’t lazily apply it or, worse, abuse it to sell products.
Pecier Decierdo is the resident astronomer/physicist at The Mind Museum.