Anti-science paranoia is creeping onto our shelves
In the modern West, everyone knows that ‘natural’ means good and ‘artificial’ means bad. End of story. It is a mindset that has been drilled into us for all sorts of products; from food, to cosmetics, household products, or even energy. The basic idea is that anything created in a lab (or by other science-based methods) is by definition synthetic, polluting and unhealthy.
In contrast, so-called ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ products are depicted as fundamentally healthier and cleaner than their synthetic counterparts. Simultaneously closer to nature and less of a burden on the natural world, they are sold as a kind of lifestyle cure-all – a way to save the planet while treating our body like a mountain temple.
Unfortunately, whilst this luxury belief works great for organic producers (or those who claim the label in their marketing material), it doesn’t hold up under scientific scrutiny. It also conceals the very real cost barriers faced by people who cannot afford to pay the organic premium.
Take the case of food colourings as an example. Natural dyes are often vaunted as a safer and cleaner alternative to artificial dyes; an ideal way to have our rainbow cake and eat it too. In reality though, natural colourings can carry toxins, bacteria, and harmful moulds, and are associated with a range of low-level health problems when consumed in excess. Certain forms (like turmeric and saffron) can also cause gastro issues and allergic reactions if consumed in sufficient quantities, and others (like beet powder) have been linked with kidney problems.
The idea that natural dyes have minimal environmental impact is also a myth. Like many organic products, they often require extensive farming, harvesting, and processing of natural resources – and many also involve extensive use of pesticides to prevent spoilage. Using nature as their primary resource also comes with clear environmental costs. For instance, producing just one pound of carminic acid (a natural red dye) requires the destruction of about 70,000 bugs.
There are also cost and utility factors to consider. Natural dyes tend to be less cost-effective for producers due to them being more chemically unstable and prone to spoiling. They are also much more expensive to produce than synthetic dyes, resulting in higher retail prices as well as a shorter shelf-life.
Of course, this is not to say that artificial food dyes are entirely without risk. They have been touted as a potential cause of hyperactive behaviour amongst children, and some studies have linked them to thyroid cancer in certain animals (though evidence of a carcinogenic effect in humans is very limited). Certain artificial dyes can also cause chemical pollution during production due to toxic byproducts, and can be energy-intensive to produce.
The fact is that, in the case of food dyes as with many food and drink products, organic doesn’t always equal good. In reality both natural and artificial colourings come with their own set of benefits and drawbacks; and deciding between them as a consumer is not as clear-cut as the organic lobby would have us believe.
Therefore, rather than imposing a simplistic ‘natural versus artificial’ mindset, consumers would be much better served if they were given a fully-rounded picture of the options available. In a world where no perfect choices exist, the best we can do is provide individuals with the facts and practical advice they need to make the right choice for them.
We should also resist the idea that anything created in a lab is automatically inferior, or worrisome. Many of our most impressive (and healthy) culinary innovations in recent years have come from scientific innovation – from sugar-free sweeteners, to allergen-free alternative products and nutritionally fortified foods. Whilst a certain dose of scepticism to any new invention is healthy, we should not let this snowball into full anti-science paranoia.
Markets would work better – and consumers ultimately healthier and happier – if this kind of nuanced pragmatism towards science were adopted, instead of unthinking ascription to whatever faddish trends are prominent on X or TikTok. It would help preserve a whole raft of safe and affordable consumer options that risk being swept away by the stifling myth of the ‘all-organic’ lifestyle.
Sam Chandler is a public affairs professional and freelance political commentator.
