The Iceland volcano that spread such havoc over European airspace as well as the hurricane destruction in Haiti give more evidence, if more is really needed, that mother nature can be harsh. And also that “natural” is not a very close synonym for “good.”
Despite this evidence advertisers and gullible consumers continue to believe that foods, medicines and even furniture, buildings and shoes that are “natural,” “organic,” “no chemicals” are somehow superior to foods, medicines, furniture, buildings and shoes that use modern plastics, chemicals, and artificial ingredients. The truth is, sometimes natural is better, but sometimes artificial is better. In other words, you can fool mother nature.
I can hear some folks say “whoa, that’s a stretch. Hurricanes and volcanoes have nothing to do with organic vegetables, homeopathic cures and earth-friendly dyes and fabrics.” Well, yes, and no. How about bacteria that cause tuberculosis, mosquitoes that carry malaria, rats and mice that spread bubonic plague? All of these are “natural” and “organic” and have no added “artificial chemicals.”
Or how about DDT? Here is a chemical that has proven to be very effective in preventing malaria, fooling nature so to speak. How about the vaccines that can prevent smallpox and polio? Or the antibiotics that can cure tuberculosis, staph infections and so many other nasty diseases? Fooling nature again.
In a sense some of these vaccines and antibiotics are “natural,” (that is, some of their molecules were made originally by natural creatures like bacteria, viruses, etc.) but they have been “artificially” changed a great deal by scientists aided by many modern chemicals, plastics and other non-natural ingredients.
The point is, of course, that “natural” and “organic” do not connote safety or quality or any other adjective you want to apply. Nor of course does “artificial” or “chemical” connote safety or quality or any other adjective you want to apply. You have to narrow it down to specific cases. Some natural things, like hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, many bacteria, bugs and plants and animals are destructive to human prosperity, health and progress. So are some chemicals, like mercury, strychnine, rat poison, carbon monoxide and chlorine.
On the other hand in the correct dosage, many of these same chemicals (whether natural or man-made) can be useful in treating human illnesses and advancing human comfort and prosperity. In the very long run even hurricanes and volcanoes can be good things. Without long-ago volcanoes for instance, Hawaii and Iceland would not exist. And without long-ago violent windstorms and ice sheets, the Midwest U.S. would have no soil.
And then consider the cases of botulin toxin and of warfarin. Botulin toxin is the natural product of certain bacteria. In its pure form it is the most toxic substance known to man. 70 nanograms (that’s 0.0000000007 grams, seven parts per trillion!) are enough to kill a 200-pound man. Warfarin is almost as toxic and is commonly used to poison rats. Both botulin toxin (botox) and warfarin, on the other hand, in appropriate small doses are used today to erase wrinkles, alleviate migraine and control blood pressure. The chemical water, H2O, is actually lethal in very large doses. And of course our bodies (and those of all living creatures) are made of an amazing cocktail of chemicals from DNA to H2O.
Bruce Ames, the biochemist at the University of California-Berkeley, invented the Ames Test. This is now the international standard for deciding whether a given chemical is carcinogenic or mutagenic. He claims that after testing thousands of “industrial, man-made” chemicals and thousands of “natural” chemicals found in “organic” plants and animals, about half of each type turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic. Of course again in each case the dose is critical. But again there seemed to be no difference in the two groups. If anything the natural chemicals were more powerful.
I will admit that in one sense organic fans have a point. Living creatures have adapted to the natural chemicals over millions of years of evolution while we have not yet had time to adapt to the industrial chemicals. Evolution has probably selected for people who had genetic immunity to some natural chemicals that cause disease—by killing those who did not have such immunity before they could pass on their genes. I don’t think we want to wait that long to develop people with immunity to newly created industrial chemicals.
Still I do think the fear of “chemicals” in the food chains and natural cycles is way overdone, even as I respect the views of those who disagree and opt to eat only “organic, chemical-free” foods. In the end each case deserves unbiased research to test for risks and benefits.
But hey, let’s have a little respect for language. Is there such a thing as non-organic food? Is there such a thing as chemically-free anything? And when you get down to it, the only thing that is not natural is … well, nothing at all.
So it’s true, on the one hand you can fool mother nature. We do it all the time. On the other hand you can’t fool mother nature–because we are mother nature!
Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President
P.S. You still have time. The big 2010 sale will end on June 1. Please take the opportunity now to stock up with top-of-the-line VHS videos and DVD programs at huge discounts. 90% for the videos, 70% for the DVDs. Your students will appreciate it next fall and you won’t be sorry. I guarantee it. Go to our web site: www.hawhill.com for further information and to place your order.
P.P.S. For more on the connection chemicals and health see our well-reviewed program DISEASE AND HEALTH as well as our popular programs CHEMICAL CYCLES IN THE BIOSPHERE, FOOD CHAINS IN THE BIOSPHERE and LOUIS PASTEUR PROVES GERMS CAUSE DISEASE.