If given the chance, which of these two bottles of water would you choose?
If you chose the one labeled “natural”, you’re not alone. Labeling a product as “natural”, “organic” or even “alternative” has become code for “healthy” or at least healthier compared to other, non-natural products. But is this really true, or is it just a way to sell products?
We have covered the term “organic” before. Organic has a very specific meaning in terms of food, legally speaking. However, despite what many people may think, organic food is not healthier than non-organic food, it is not pesticide free, nor is it better for the environment. The power of the label “organic” has been recognized to the point that the USDA felt it necessary to define exactly what it means, thereby preventing everyone from using the term and rendering it meaningless. This hasn’t stopped the misconception that organic equals healthy, however, and numerous companies use this to their advantage in their advertising.
Another successful marketing buzzword is “natural”. The USDA defines “natural” food as food that does not contain artificial ingredients. However, they are pretty lenient with what constitutes an artificial ingredient. Things like antibiotics and growth hormones are allowed, as is some degree of processing. While some may think, based on the labeling above, that the “natural” spring water is healthier than the regular water, the truth is that there is absolutely no difference between these products. Water is water, and all water contains electrolytes. It is certainly possible to synthesize water, but no one would ever do this at a commercial scale – it would be prohibitively expensive. The water in both bottles came from the ground, and while there may be slight differences in their mineral content, they are both equally “natural” and healthy. Some companies have taken things a step further and marketed “raw water”, which is completely untreated or processed. While this may sound to some to be a “healthier” option, it actually much worse for you, because while it is nutritionally the same (water is water), it carries a risk of disease carrying micro-organisms that the filtered or processed waters above do not.
The success of “organic” or “natural” products stems from chemphobia, or the fear of chemicals. Just the word “chemical” has a negative connotation for many – something that is synthetic, un-natural, or even dangerous. Advertisers use this to their advantage. In addition to natural and organic, they use words such as “gluten-free”, “GMO-free”, “alternative” or “homeopathic” to suggest their products are somehow healthier then “regular” products.
We have highlighted a couple of these misleading add campaigns in the past. PUR water filters ran a series of ads playing on people’s fear of lead in their water, arguing that their product made water “safer” by lowering lead levels below those considered safe by federal regulations. This was a particularly cynical ad to run during the Flint water crisis, in which thousands of people were exposed to high lead levels in their drinking water due to a combination of government corruption seemingly willful ignorance.
Stonyfield yogurt ran a series of ads using kids to sell their organic yogurt by calling GMO foods “monstrous” and using the “fish-tomato” as an example when it has nothing at all to do with GMO food safety or their product. The Stonyfield products are verified GMO-free, but they are only labeled as “organic”, and not “100% organic”, which means that up to 5% of the ingredients in their products can be non-organic, something that Stonyfield doesn’t feel it necessary to address in their ad campaign.
The non-GMO project verification is touted by Stonyfield and others as proof that their products are somehow healthier than others, but consumers need to be aware that this is not necessarily the case. Some companies selling products for which there is literally no possibility of using GMO ingredients, such as bottled water or coffee, have paid to have the non-GMO certification label added to their products. Since GMO water, tomatoes, and coffee do not exist (nor do GMO blueberries, apples, or oranges), the only reason to pay to add such a label to your product is marketing. These companies are trying to win customers by making their products seem healthier or safer when they are not. There is no data suggesting that non-GMO foods are any healthier or safer than GMO foods.
The gluten free label is one of the most abused, since the absence of gluten from the diet is not inherently healthy (unless you have celiac’s disease), and some products labeled as “gluten free”, like water – would never, under any circumstances have gluten in them. The term is used so often because people respond to it, equating gluten free with a healthy choice, even when it is not.
Let’s be clear – just like “organic”, “GMO-free”, and “gluten-free” products, “natural”, “alternative” and “homeopathic” products offer no health advantage over other similar products labeled otherwise. Just like water is water, a chemical is a chemical whether it comes from “natural” or an unnamed commercial sources. They are chemicals either way – everything you eat is a chemical, and you are made of chemicals. Advertisers are taking advantage of consumers by using these labels, and the confusion they create by suggesting over and over again in their ads that “natural” is healthier makes it very difficult for science-advocacy groups and blogs (like UYBFS) to counter popular opinion.
The most dangerous manifestation of chemphobia is the distrust of modern medicine. The reasoning often given for belief in so-called “alternative” or “homeopathic” remedies is that they are natural, and that modern medicine, with it’s use of chemicals is somehow “bad”. This could not be farther from the truth. Without exception, alternative medicine does not work. That’s because once it has been shown to work, it’s no longer considered “alternative” – it’s mainstream medicine. There is a certain irony in the chemphobic belief that an unproven alternative therapy is “good” because it’s natural, while as soon as the same therapy been shown to work in controlled trials and it looses the “alternative” label, it would be treated with skepticism because it is “man-made medicine”.
The fear of chemicals and the trust of products advertised as “natural” is a product of chemphobia and poor science education. While a consumer’s tendency to buy “natural” or “organic” foods will likely only negatively impact their wallet, people can and do die because of trust in natural alternative or homeopathy therapies. This is chemophobia taken to it’s extreme. As far as “natural” things go, just remember: there’s nothing more “natural” for humans than being infected by an intestinal parasite or eaten by wolves. Natural isn’t always good.
So the next time to instinctively reach for the “natural” product – consider why you are making this choice. While it is reasonable to buy these products if you like the brand, or the taste, it is a mistake to think products labeled this way will necessarily be healthier for you. A chemical is a chemical, regardless of where is can from, and chemicals are nothing to be afraid of.
Welcome to “chemicals and society”, where we highlight the current understanding of the biological effects and safety of some of the most common chemicals in today’s society.
What is glyphosate? Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, a herbicide which happens to be one of the most widely used in the world. There are several reasons why Roundup is so popular. It’s a very good herbicide, killing actively growing plants quickly with a single application. It also is relatively safe, because it targets an enzyme that plants have but animals do not (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, say that ten times fast!), and it doesn’t accumulate in the environment like many earlier generation herbicides. Another reason it’s popular is that many GMO crops are engineered to resists it’s effects, rendering it an ideal herbicide for control of weeds when growing these crops.
Glyphosate and Cancer. If you have heard of glyphosate recently, it probably because of reports that it causes cancer. So let’s start with this. Here’s the story:
When it was first approved for use, the data suggested that glyphosate posed no carcinogenic (cancer-causing) risk. As is always the case, scientists kept an eye on the data as the use of this chemical increased dramatically over the years. Some data seemed to indicate some cancer risk, while most did not. Health authorities in the United States, Japan, Canada, most of Europe, and many other countries do not consider glyphosate to be linked to cancer.
People eat organic food for many reasons. Some people think it’s healthier. Some say it’s safer. Some just like the way it tastes. One of the most common reasons is to avoid pesticides. But is there any evidence for these ideas about organic food? Are any of these things actually true? UYBFS has the answers! Let’s start with the facts about what the term “organic” really means, in a legal sense, in the United States.
OK, now that we have basics covered, one benefit you’ll often hear is that organic food is “safer” or “pesticide-free”. Unfortunately, this is not true. Damn you facts! Always busting up our preconceived notions! Here are the facts:
GMOs have a bad name. This is a fact. The reaction of many people to the term “GMO” is negative. That negative reaction likely stems from several vague concerns: that of humans recklessly altering that which is “natural,” or of the potential to damage “natural” biodiversity, or the loss of freedom of choice that comes with unknowingly ingesting GMO food. However, the most common, and most serious concern of all is that of safety. How could we possibly know that GMOs are safe? There are diseases out there that seem to be increasing in prevalence and we don’t know what causes them – could it be the relatively recent introduction of GMOs?
Science can help with the questions of alteration of “natural” organisms and biodiversity, though these are questions we will not try to answer in this post. The question of freedom of choice, or consent, or “right to know” is strictly an ethical one. The one question here that science is most equipped to answer is one about safety. That is because we have developed very sophisticated methods for hazard identification and risk assessment over the years (and after learning some very hard lessons in the past), and because the government regulatory agencies around the world have dictated, right from the start of the GMO revolution, that new products need to be scientifically proven to be safe. Today, we will look objectively and scientifically at the available data to answer this most basic of questions.
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then give you the facts.
The bad science: There is a viral post making the rounds on Facebook claiming that Heinz Katchup is dangerous
What do they claim? They make vague claims that Heinz Ketchup is poisonous and dangerous and maybe even causes cancer
Are they trying to sell you something? Only misinformation as far as I can tell. Maybe alternative ketchup brands?
Is any of this true? No. This article was clearly written by someone who doesn’t really understand basic science. Let’s look at each baseless claim one at a time!