by Habina Seo
Natural health products and herbal remedies are often marketed as safe and effective, and some even claim to beat their pharmaceutical counterparts. However, how safe is it really to try a ‘natural alternative’ first before resorting to medicine?
The prejudice against chemicals has seemingly increased over the past few years, despite the vast progress science has made. This is known as ‘chemophobia’ or ‘chemonoia’, which many people have and can be damaging to their own, and others’ health. It can be severe enough that it belies evidence and scientific research proving a substance’s safety- resulting in people turning to and sometimes obsessing over ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ alternatives, often without consideration of the possible dangers of the unconventional health practices. Some examples of such naturopathic approaches include homeopathy, acupuncture and herbalism, which are linked philosophically by a belief in vitalism- the prescientific idea we have a “life force”. Although sometimes, sensible and effective practices emerge from this philosophy, it can equally as often produce illogical, risky and harmful ones. Many naturopathic treatments have little to no published evidence to back up the effectiveness. For example, naturopathy suggests garlic extract to improve cholesterol levels for reducing the risk of heart disease, however there is no published evidence to demonstrate that this can decrease the risk of a heart attack or stroke. Despite the clear disconnect from science, naturopaths see and present themselves just like medical doctors, often campaigning that naturopaths are “medically trained”. Another more extreme example would be the anti-vaccination issue which has risen in recent years. There was a recent surge in measles in late August 2019, which tops the statistics for the whole of 2018. Earlier that month the UK had lost its measles free status, which the World Health Organization claims was down to the recent boom in cases and the lengthy presence of one particular strain, while experts also claim that the deteriorating progress in measles are linked to the inadequate vaccination rates due to the anti-vaxxer movement. This group can be easily influenced by controversy and confusion regarding the danger of chemicals. For instance, in 2013, Johnson & Johnson announced their elimination of a formaldehyde-producing preservative in their products, following a rise in concern with the chemical and its link to cancer (its vapour was shown to be a carcinogen in 1980). Despite levels being too low to be considered toxic and despite formaldehyde being already present in blood and in much larger concentrations in several fruits, Johnson & Johnson spent millions reformulating their products in order to keep sales up by easing the mind of the customer.
The stigma caused can be blamed on false information being spread via biased articles, online ‘news’ sources and general digital media helping to gather a worryingly large number of people who share the same belief in which the information may be scientifically incorrect and purely based on philosophy, along with some selfish parental tendencies. However, the danger is shown in that the once eliminated viral diseases, which humanity has painstakingly worked over decades to defeat, have recently been detected again, or in the case of measles, has returned in high numbers. In particular, the results of flawed and false claims over the safety of the MMR vaccine.
Another instance where the appeal to nature may override informed decisions is the idea that ‘organic foods’ are better than conventional; they are widely seen as more natural, healthier and more ethical. However, many buyers do not even know what ‘organic’ means in this context.
In recent years, organic food sales have rapidly increased despite higher prices, as it has become more of a moral and social responsibility than an alternative to GM crops and conventional foods. Organic foods are generally defined as being grown without GMO seeds, synthetic fertilizers or synthetic pesticides, and farmers may use more traditional ways of growing food, such as crop rotation and using compost and manure. Several studies showed that organic food had a higher level of antioxidants, which is a sort of natural pesticide that plants produce, and this seems to be because the non-organic kind get enough help from humans, therefore not needing to produce as much natural antioxidants. The antioxidants are believed to have some health benefits; however, scientists are still unsure of this. It isn’t known exactly what it does and how much you would have to consume to get those benefits. Furthermore, the evidence that organic foods are more nutritious is mixed and inconsistent, showing that there are only small differences in health benefits.
Another reason why people would want to buy organic food is to avoid ‘chemicals’ and ‘artificial’ substances, which could be toxic. However, studies show that natural pesticides are used (they are not banned, although generally less is used and left on the crops) which are natural toxins, such as vegetable oil and copper sulfates, but also traces of synthetic substances too. In the end, toxic is toxic, whether it is man made or derived from nature. Therefore, the concern should be the amount and toxicity of the substance that we are exposed to, not whether it is a synthetic or natural one.
So, what are people doing to tackle this? Politicians are urging parents to make sure their children are vaccinated, and also that social media need to contribute in combating the spreading the misinformation. Ensuring that people make educated and sensible decisions about their use of chemicals and synthetic substances in their lives will improve individuals’ and others’ health, and perhaps this can prevent the backwards progress in human health despite the forward moving science we have today.
Sources :
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.