It could also apply to anything pertaining the use of the word “natural”, but here comes another rant…
So I posted in the past, on my facebook, about how I don’t like the word organic being used, and this also applies to the word natural.
Now my problem with the word natural is that you hear it in sentences like “It’s natural; it’s less dangerous.” or “Well, it’s not natural”.
If the natural version (part of a plant) is better than its pure counterpart (pills), it is not because “natural is better” but simply because there happens to be particular reaction in the container (part of the plant) that acts as preservative or offers a second chemical for interaction, etc.
What is natural anyway. Something that hasn’t been altered by humans? I’m curious to think what people think of when they think of something natural. If it’s been physically altered, is it still natural?
When something has been chemical modified is usually when most will agree that something isn’t natural anymore. Some drugs like semi-synthetic (heroine) and synthetic drugs (methadone) would not be considered natural, and rightly so if the word is to be employed in such manner.
In my opinion, new drugs are to be taken case per case. There’s considerably more known and understood than the considered natural drugs, for many reason including research funding. Science is a progression. Although having centuries, sometimes millennia, of documentation on drug effects is helpful, they are only to be taken with a grain of salt, due to their lack for certain aspects for proper scientific validations. It doesn’t matter if a drug has been used forever, what really matters are the scientific facts backing it.
What about domesticated plants that are left to grow on their own in nature. Are they still natural? They did have the genetic guidance of humans at one point. Where does it stop? And hence forth comes my issue with the use of the word natural.
I guess my next rant will be about GMO. GMO seems to scare a lot of people.