Natural VS artificial Why this preference for patients?
i am sick and tired of crazy patients with bad and poorly controlled Multiple chronic medical conditions who refuse to take ' Artificial man made chemicals " and want to get treated with " natural God made supplements"
Sometimes I wonder do theses people even read the ingredients in each of those plants which are mentioned by their " Scientific name "
This distinction between artificial and natural Serves as a basis for labeling and because of market pressures, the term nalural is preferred for the label over any description that might include the word artificial. Also, the term artificial is separate and distinct from the term imitation (Sce 21 CFR SIOl.3). The term nature identical once used widely to designate a sub- stance, although present in nature, may also be produced syn- thetically For example, natural benzaldehyde is produced from the pits of peaches, but this process has a rather low yield and produces waste material (cyanide) for which disposal is costly. On the other hand. production of benzaldehyde from chemical feedstock is much more economical and is putatively the same as that produced from nature; therefore, it is nature identical. The use of this term is an artifact of regulation because at one time the approval process in some European countries was much easier ror those substances with a natural counterpart. The term nature identical was never embraced by the FDA and has largely been superseded by the term chemically defined substance. The nature identical designation is still used by the International Organisation of Flavour Industries (ION).
i am sick and tired of crazy patients with bad and poorly controlled Multiple chronic medical conditions who refuse to take ' Artificial man made chemicals " and want to get treated with " natural God made supplements"
Sometimes I wonder do theses people even read the ingredients in each of those plants which are mentioned by their " Scientific name "
This distinction between artificial and natural Serves as a basis for labeling and because of market pressures, the term nalural is preferred for the label over any description that might include the word artificial. Also, the term artificial is separate and distinct from the term imitation (Sce 21 CFR SIOl.3). The term nature identical once used widely to designate a sub- stance, although present in nature, may also be produced syn- thetically For example, natural benzaldehyde is produced from the pits of peaches, but this process has a rather low yield and produces waste material (cyanide) for which disposal is costly. On the other hand. production of benzaldehyde from chemical feedstock is much more economical and is putatively the same as that produced from nature; therefore, it is nature identical. The use of this term is an artifact of regulation because at one time the approval process in some European countries was much easier ror those substances with a natural counterpart. The term nature identical was never embraced by the FDA and has largely been superseded by the term chemically defined substance. The nature identical designation is still used by the International Organisation of Flavour Industries (ION).
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, William R. Newman - 2007 - Preview
These essays--by specialists ofdifferent periods and various disciplines--reveal that the division between nature and art has beencontinually challenged and reassessed in Western thought.
INTRODUCTION: T HE ARTIFICIAL AND T VIE NATURAL: STATE, OF THE PR0B1,FM Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and William R. Newman With each passing day the traditional boundary between the natural and the artificial becomes less distinct. Consider a few examples from the realm of biology. Bioengineering has proposed strawberries with genes taken from fish, "genetic artists" boast Of having made a phosphorescent rabbit by implanting DNA from jellyfish, and in Mexico, genetically modified "Frankencorn" has possibly made its way into the wild, hybridizing with varieties of maize hitherto untouched bv humans. Are such living entities rendered "artificial" by the human intervention that modified their genetic makeup? If so, does it not follow that hybrids produced by old-fashioned cross-breeding are human-made as well, and that every tomato or pear that we eat is an "artificial" product? Perhaps the reader will recoil at this suggestion, since it would imply that virtually every fruit, vegetable, meat, or drink that serves for our nutrition is factitious. So let us imagine for the moment that the products of hybridization and contemporary biotechnology are "natural." In that case, further problems arise. If we do not label the products of bioengineering as artificial, then what right does any human-made product have to the term? Why should a polymer or dyestuff made by tinkering with coal- tar molecules be any more artificial than a rabbit whose DNA has been altered so that it glows in the presence of a certain wavelength of light? If we turn to the realm Of' cold, hard silicon, similar questions emerge. Computer science has bridged the chasm between man and machine, giving us "Deep Blue," the IBM product that defeated Garry Kasparov at chess. Unsatisfied with this conquest, the computational laboratories of MIT arc building robots that simulate human emotion, while researchers at Carnegie Mellon are devising Ways humans may one day give up their biological bodies, allowing computers to become the recipients Of their consciousness, digitized and uploaded into a suitable machine-readable matrix. Assuming the eventual feasibility of this science fiction scenario, where then would the line be drawn between
an artificial and a natural human being? The triumph of Ian Wilmut AN n R. NEWMAN and his team in engineering a sheep cloned from a mammary cell just a decade or so ago now seems a mere memory—a distant prelude to the polyvalent symphony of human intervention that is sure to follow. The recent products and future dreams of biotechnology and artificial intelligence present striking challenges to the commonsense distinction between the natural and the arttficial_ But in reality this dichotomy has always been confounded by human activities in the form of even the most primitive machines and technologies. All materials, whether natural or artificial, are first extracted from nature and then pro-
and chemical Systems they belong to nature and generate number Of effects independent of the intentions of their designers. And of course our artifacts have such a profound effect on ecosystems that their mass production increasingly raises important environmental issues. If we turn from individual "natural products" to nature in the wild, is clear that we Will fail to find the absolutely natural here either. Over centuries and millennia of agricultural and industrial activities nature has been deeply reconfigured by humans. "Native forest" in the sense of woodland absolutely untouched by humans exists nowhere but in
of woodland absolutely untouched by humans exists nowhere but in the human imagination. NO part Of the earth has been completely un— affected by the effects of human technologies. This is by no means a re- cent discovery resulting from an increasing concern with environmental Issues. As early as the eighteenth century, when the first artificial soda was synthesized and when gardens with sheep grazing in meadows be came fashionable—supplanting the jardins la franqaise—Jean-Jacques Rousseau clearly realized that the state of nature was an intellectual con- Struct10n, an indispensable fiction for ascertaining the foundations Of the political order. Given these and other considerations, we should reasonably conclude that there is no such thing IS a great divide between nature and art. More precisely, instead of opting ror an absolute distinc- tion of quality between the artificial and the natural, onc should accept only a gradual distinction of degree. Bur the omnipresence of this divide in our culture and its peBis- tence in contemporary debates cannot be overlooked. As Roald Hoff- man pointed out in The Same and Nor the Same, the "rational" arguments used by modern chemists In order to fight the popular prejudice against
Natural and Artificial Flavors: What's the Difference?
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0991005597
Josh Bloom, Josh Bloom Ph D - 2016 - No preview
This consumer-friendly publication Natural and Artificial Flavors: What's the Difference by Dr. Josh Bloom, Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences of the American Council on Science and Health, explores the simple laws of .
Of the many misconceptions used in the "natural vs. artificial" narrative, two stand out: 1) That artificial flavors are inherently less healthy than their natural counterparts, and 2) that a flavor chemical obtained from a natural source is either different or superior to the same flavor chemical produced in a laboratory or factory. Together, these beliefs represent a cornerstone of the natural movement. As pervasive as this mindset is among consumers of "organic" and "natural" goods, it violates simple laws of chemistry. This consumer-friendly publication Natural and Artificial Flavors: What's the Difference by Dr. Josh Bloom, Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences of the American Council on Science and Health, explores the simple laws of chemistry to define the similarities and differences. The goal is to help consumers understand that natural versus artificial flavoring may be more alike in chemical composition than anticipated-and perhaps, just a matter of acquired "taste." The American Council on Science and Health is a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health. It was founded in 1978 by a group of scientists concerned that many important public policies related to health and the environment did not have a sound scientific basis. These scientists created the organization to add reason and balance to debates about public health issues and bring common sense views to the public
No comments:
Post a Comment