“天然”食物更健康？不一定！

    最近，天然新闻网（Natural News）招惹上了一场不大不小的麻烦，起因在于该网站颇具争议的所有人兼编辑迈克•亚当斯认为，那些捍卫转基因作物的人与孟山都农业生化公司（Monsanto）是“一丘之貉”，而且将他们比作是纳粹政权的帮凶。

    这种观点引起轩然大波，让很多人疑惑不解的是，天然新闻网极具人气，因为这家网站总是发布一些充斥着阴谋论的文章，而且最喜欢刊载骗人的健康小诀窍。该网站每月吸引大约700万名独立访问者。它发布的文章——无论是关于供水氟化背后的阴谋或者大肆宣扬太阳的治癌特性——被广泛地转载于社交媒体。该网站拥有120万名Facebook粉丝。

    其广受欢迎的部分原因完全在于这样一个事实——世界各地的人们都在给令人懊恼的问题寻找简单的答案。但是还有一部分应归功于该网站的名称：“天然新闻网”，多么吸引人啊。“天然的”就是好的，不是吗？很多人认为“天然的”东西本身就比“人工的”或“人造的”东西好。这也有助于解释原始人饮食法 ( Paleo diet )和赤足跑鞋这类流行趋势。它们的依据在于，只要人类遵循所有现代高科技出现之前的生活方式，那么我们就会更健康。

    当然，这都是无稽之谈。埃博拉病毒可是纯天然的，但人造心脏却是人造的。而且还有一点值得注意的是，如果杂交和选择育种也算是人工劳作，那么我们大多数食物作物亦是人造的，的确如此。但是更具讽刺意味的关键点在于，饱受天然新闻网粉丝和拥趸诟病的食品行业也在完完整整地照搬他们对“天然”一词的用法，其目的就是为了哄骗人们相信，只要是打上“天然”标签的产品，顾名思义，肯定要好于其他非天然的产品。

    尼尔森公司（Nielsen）的数据显示，食品行业每年所销售的“天然”产品价值410亿美元。《华盛顿邮报》（TheWashington Post）记者罗伯托•费德曼最近写道，食品行业对这一术语的使用可谓是乱贴标签“最恶名昭彰的例子”。

    美国食品及药物管理局（FDA）可能会偶尔对这一术语提提反对意见，但仅针对那些明目张胆的案件，例如食品中含有添加色素或合成香料。食品及药物管理局裹步不前的原因在于，从“食品科学的角度来讲，人们很难去界定某种食物是否是‘天然的’，因为食物可能已经被加工过，而且不再是地球的产物。”换句话说，除非你能在田地里弯下腰像土拨鼠那样咀嚼菠菜，否则你所食用的食物可能已经经过了不同程度的加工。非“天然”的分界线在哪？这一点很重要。正因为如此，食品及药物管理局表示，它“并没有对‘天然’这一术语或其派生词的使用加以定义。”

    Recently, the Web site Natural News got itself into a bit of a kerfuffle after its controversial owner and editor, Mike Adams, suggested that people who defend genetically modified crops are “collaborators” with Monsanto, and comparing them to collaborators with the Nazi regime.

    Among the reactions were expressions of puzzlement over the popularity of Natural News, which traffics in conspiracy theories and which never met a quack health remedy it didn’t like. The site draws 7 million unique visitors per month. Its articles — whether about the sinister plot behind the fluoridation of water supplies or about the sun’s cancer-curing properties — are widely shared on social media. The site has 1.2 million Facebook likes.

    Part of its popularity can no doubt be attributed to the fact that people everywhere are looking for easy answers to vexing problems. But another part can be attributed to the site’s title: “Natural News” just sounds so attractive. “Nature” is good, right? Many people believe that “”natural” things are inherently better than “artificial” or “man-made” things. This helps to explain trends like the Paleo diet and barefoot running shoes, which rely on the notion that if we just do things the way humans did them before all this complicated technology modernity came along, we’d be much better off.

    It’s all a crock, of course. The Ebola virus is natural. The artificial heart is human-made — as are, it should be noted, most of our major food crops, if you count hybridization and selective breeding as being the work of humans, which they are. But there’s a deep irony at the center of this: the food industry that is so reviled by the likes of Natural News and its fans uses the term “natural” in precisely the same way — to hoodwink people into thinking that something labeled as “natural” is by definition superior to something that isn’t.

    According to data from Nielsen, the food industry sells about $41 billion worth of products a year marketed as “natural.” The industry’s use of that term is “the most egregious example” of nonsense labeling, the Washington Post’s Roberto A. Ferdmanrecently wrote.

    The Food and Drug Administration might occasionally object to the term, but only in flagrant cases, as when a food product contains added colors or synthetic flavorings. The FDA hesitates because from “a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.” In other words, unless you’re bent over in a farm field gnawing spinach like a prairie dog, you’re probably eating food that has been processed to some degree. At what point is it no longer “natural?” It’s impossible to say, which is why the FDA notes that it “has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives.”