The trouble with always trying to preserve the health of the body is that it is so difficult to do without destroying the health of the mind. ~G.K. Chesterton

Humans’ “appeal to nature” is a commonly witnessed fallacy of relevance (an argument that could in itself be true, but which does not tackle the question at hand). Such an erroneous belief is made up of an assumption that something is good (as in healthy or acceptable) simply because it’s natural, or that something is bad (unhealthy or not normal) exclusively based on the fact that it is unnatural. Numerous issues, however, arise from such an argument.

First of all, the word “natural” is regularly used as a “loaded term” that draws people to appeal derived from feelings and emotions habitually subconsciously linked with “what’s normal”; its utilization in most circumstances is simply a style of bias having nothing to do with logic. For example, humans may have the right/choice to be omnivorous by nature, but it isn’t a necessary “is” statement for survival. And true, omnivores can digest meat, but they can also digest fruits and vegetables and still live just as healthy of a lifestyle.

Secondly, what is considered to be “natural” is rather vague and therefore the declaration that everything natural is good is a rather fuzzy truth. For example, many plants can be found naturally on the planet, but many of these plants are actually poisonous “by nature”. The theory can swiftly be overthrown by a counter-argument exhibiting things that are natural, but which have undesirable properties—take for instance aging, sickness, and death— all very natural occurrences, but all very much undesirable.

Lastly, when thinking of the idea of “the appeal to nature” take for example cocaine. As informed citizens, we are all taught that it is an addictive, dangerous, and often deadly drug that inflicts destruction on the body’s organs. It is, however, an “all-natural” drug derived from the coca plan and was prescribed for years as a remedy for everything from chest colds to depression.

Just because we are trained that something is good or bad according to society’s standards, does that mean that it “is”, in actuality, good or bad? Is whether a product is “all-natural” or not justly an essential determinant of its safety and effectiveness?