“天然”食物更健康？不一定！

????最近，天然新聞網（Natural News）招惹上了一場不大不小的麻煩，起因在于該網站頗具爭議的所有人兼編輯邁克?亞當斯認為，那些捍衛轉基因作物的人與孟山都農業生化公司（Monsanto）是“一丘之貉”，而且將他們比作是納粹政權的幫兇。

????這種觀點引起軒然大波，讓很多人疑惑不解的是，天然新聞網極具人氣，因為這家網站總是發布一些充斥著陰謀論的文章，而且最喜歡刊載騙人的健康小訣竅。該網站每月吸引大約700萬名獨立訪問者。它發布的文章——無論是關于供水氟化背后的陰謀或者大肆宣揚太陽的治癌特性——被廣泛地轉載于社交媒體。該網站擁有120萬名Facebook粉絲。

????其廣受歡迎的部分原因完全在于這樣一個事實——世界各地的人們都在給令人懊惱的問題尋找簡單的答案。但是還有一部分應歸功于該網站的名稱：“天然新聞網”，多么吸引人啊?！疤烊坏摹本褪呛玫?，不是嗎？很多人認為“天然的”東西本身就比“人工的”或“人造的”東西好。這也有助于解釋原始人飲食法 ( Paleo diet )和赤足跑鞋這類流行趨勢。它們的依據在于，只要人類遵循所有現代高科技出現之前的生活方式，那么我們就會更健康。

????當然，這都是無稽之談。埃博拉病毒可是純天然的，但人造心臟卻是人造的。而且還有一點值得注意的是，如果雜交和選擇育種也算是人工勞作，那么我們大多數食物作物亦是人造的，的確如此。但是更具諷刺意味的關鍵點在于，飽受天然新聞網粉絲和擁躉詬病的食品行業也在完完整整地照搬他們對“天然”一詞的用法，其目的就是為了哄騙人們相信，只要是打上“天然”標簽的產品，顧名思義，肯定要好于其他非天然的產品。

????尼爾森公司（Nielsen）的數據顯示，食品行業每年所銷售的“天然”產品價值410億美元?！度A盛頓郵報》（TheWashington Post）記者羅伯托?費德曼最近寫道，食品行業對這一術語的使用可謂是亂貼標簽“最惡名昭彰的例子”。

????美國食品及藥物管理局（FDA）可能會偶爾對這一術語提提反對意見，但僅針對那些明目張膽的案件，例如食品中含有添加色素或合成香料。食品及藥物管理局裹步不前的原因在于，從“食品科學的角度來講，人們很難去界定某種食物是否是‘天然的’，因為食物可能已經被加工過，而且不再是地球的產物?！睋Q句話說，除非你能在田地里彎下腰像土撥鼠那樣咀嚼菠菜，否則你所食用的食物可能已經經過了不同程度的加工。非“天然”的分界線在哪？這一點很重要。正因為如此，食品及藥物管理局表示，它“并沒有對‘天然’這一術語或其派生詞的使用加以定義?！?/p>

????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.”