Synthetic and Natural Pesticides: The ongoing debate

There are many known groups of synthetic pesticides. These include organochlorines, organophosphate, carbamates, and pyrethroids. Exposure to such pesticides can cause harm to humans if exposed in large quantities. Organochlorines tend to effect the reproductive system, the nervous system, and the immune system. Organophosphates and Carbamates tend to affect the nervous system. According to the EPA, “there are over 160 synthetic pesticides that are listed to be possible carcinogens.” These pesticides, however, are highly effective and are very residual. No synthetic pesticide is completely environmentally friendly because they are designed to kill. For example, Pyrethroids may not much harm birds and mammals but this pesticide certainly harms fish and amphibians. Most groups within the organophosphate and carbamate groups of synthetic pesticides leave extremely toxic effects on humans as well as animals. Are organic pesticides any better?
Many pesticides today are deemed organic. Organic pesticides come from fatty acids, salts and plant oils. Yet, some of these deemed “organic” pesticides contain ingredients like copper octanoate, which make them not completely organic but organic-metallic. The effect of copper on the environment in South African studies has been quite negative. So which is better, natural or synthetic?
The natural pesticides made from fatty acids and oils have been shown to kill aquatic life and invertebrates, but spare warm blooded creatures like humans. Natural pesticides, being organic, also decompose very well. Synthetic pesticides have shown harmful effects on mostly all populations through lengthy periods of exposure and these pesticides do not decompose well. So, although natural pesticides can be as harmful as synthetic pesticides are supposed to be, they decompose relatively quickly and the long term harm is reduced. But then we have the logistics. It takes about ten times as much natural pesticides to do the same work as a certain quantity of synthetic pesticide. So in the end, the conclusion is that neither natural nor synthetic pesticides are eventually environmentally friendly. In this vain, researchers have begun experimentation with biopesticides and genetic alteration. Access more information about the dangers of natural and synthetic pesticides alike here.

The Search for the Perfect Pesticide

Farmers have been combating insects, weeds, and fungi for as long as agriculture has existed. Synthetic pesticides were first used in the U.S. in the 1930s, and today, 90% of the pesticides used are synthetic. However, after it was discovered that certain chemical pesticides such as organophosphate pesticides and organochlorine insecticides could cause cancer, neurological disorders, and lung irritation in humans, consumers and producers alike have been searching for a safer solution. The alternatives considered have been natural biopesticides, or even no pesticides at all.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines a biopesticide as "certain types of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals." Natural pesticides are not necessarily less toxic or harmful to the pests than chemical pesticides, but they are biodegradable and leave very little chemical residue. Biopesticides do not pollute the air or water, and do not cause harm to beneficial insects such as bees and ladybeetles. They are also more difficult for insects to develop a resistance to than chemical pesticides, which is a great advantage since a chemical pesticide will be rendered useless if the insect mutates even once. The only downside to using biopesticides is that a large amount needs to be applied in order to have a significant effect. Additionally, timing must be considered as in some cases only the larvae will be affected and not the adults. Another alternative is not to use a pesticide at all, as some pests can be made to stay out of crops by providing a patch of a more favorable crop, though this method is not effective enough to use for produce.

However, modern synthetic pesticides are now less toxic, are more efficient, and kill only the targeted species instead of all organisms that come into contact with it. Mr. Rick Melnicoe, Director of the Western Integrated Pest Management Center and the UC Statewide Pesticide Coordinator says, “it is important to remember that it is the dose that makes the poison and that there is virtually no illness associated with modern pesticide residue on foods. Illnesses that DO occur are caused by misuse, exposure to concentrated levels by workers, and basic stupidity such as accidentally drinking the mixture.” Not eating the recommended 5-9 servings of fruits and vegetables per day would cause more harm than the pesticide.

Natural vs. Synthetic Vitamin E: A Different Point of View

In his article, Mike Adams argues that while natural vitamin E is helpful in treating and preventing heart disease, synthetic vitamin E actually “has the opposite molecular structure of natural vitamin E”, that it will kill you rather than benefit you. This quote contradicts what most of our blog has been arguing, that natural and synthetic molecular structures are similar.

As Mike Adams claims, because vitamin E is lethal in its synthetic form, drug sellers have often used this synthetic form to scare people away from using vitamin E, and to promote their own high-profit pharmaceuticals over more cost-effective nutritional supplements.

Mike Adams states this method of advertising is flawed in two ways. First, most of the studies the advertisers base their argument on are studies of isolated vitamin E. Yet most people eat vitamin E mixed with other nutritional substances. Adams believes that the effect of isolated vitamin E on your body is different from the effect of vitamin E mixed with other substances.

The second reason is the more striking one, as far as our blog is concerned. As mentioned above, synthetic vitamin E is lethal. Adams claims that natural vitamin E, the form found in many of our foods, has an opposite molecular structure to synthetic vitamin E, and that natural vitamin E is actually beneficial to us. Therefore, advertisers are not accurately representing all forms of vitamin E found in our food.

Joe Schwarz claims in his “Fly to the Ointment” that natural and synthetic substances are similar in molecular structure. Yet, according to Mike Adams, the exact opposite is true. What could be going on here? Is Mike Adams wrong? Or is vitamin E simply an exception to Schwarz’s claim. Are there other exceptions? And what is truly better, natural or synthetic? Mike Adam’s article shows that no one answer has been universally accepted yet, and that the debate of natural vs. synthetic still continues and probably will continue for a long time.

Vitamin E’s Role in Preventing Heart Disease

Heart disease has become a major factor in many of the deaths in the world. How can we prevent this? Studies have shown that vitamin E plays a role in preventing heart disease by inhibiting the oxidation of LDLs (low-density lipo-proteins). LDLs are the bad cholesterol that we believe to be the start of many heart diseases. The preventative nature of vitamin E was verified by a clinical study by Jialal, in which he noticed an inverse relationship between amount of vitamin E ingested and susceptibility to heart disease. He also noted that a minimum of 400 IUs (international units) of vitamin E was needed for significant changes to be observed.

While it has become clear that vitamin E helps prevent heart cancer, scientists have wondered whether natural or synthetic vitamin E was more effective in such prevention. In most animals, natural vitamin E was absorbed more efficiently into the body than synthetic vitamin C. Was the same true for humans? Jialal’s study suggests otherwise. According to his study, there was no correlation between heart disease and whether the vitamin E the subject ingested was natural or synthetic. Patients who took in 400 IUs of synthetic vitamins were just as protected from heart disease as patients who took in the same amount of natural vitamin E. In other words, “Synthetic vitamin E works as well as natural vitamin E in preventing heart disease”, as quoted from an article describing Jialal’s study.

So, once again, it has been shown that natural substances are not necessarily always better than synthetic substances.

Synthetic Diamonds

For the past 50 years, synthetic diamonds have been produced by companies such as Gemesis, Diamond Innovations (previously with General Electric), Sumitomo Electric, and De Beers. While the latter three companies market these diamonds to be used industrially as saw blades, drill bits, heat sinks, or for research purposes only, Gemesis grows diamonds for jewelry by mimicking the high pressure and high temperatures conditions in which diamonds form naturally. The advantages of synthetic diamonds over natural gemstones are of course that they are less expensive, and that sizing and color can controlled. A “Gemesis-created yellow fancy-colored diamond” is indistinguishable from a natural one to the naked eye—differences can only be revealed by infrared spectroscopy and X-ray absorption spectroscopy or exposing the diamond to intense ultraviolet light, in addition to the laser inscription—and costs about 30% less than a natural diamond of similar quality.

A second method of creating synthetic diamonds is a low-pressure technique called chemical vapor deposition (CVD) by Apollo Diamond, a less expensive method which also allows a greater control over color and size. Again, the diamonds are laser inscribed and can be differentiated from natural ones through spectroscopy. Instead of graphite, hydrogen is the key to growing the gems. Hydrogen gas mixes with methane in a chamber, and “the hydrogen gas is split into atomic hydrogen by the action of a hot filament or a microwave-generated plasma. The atomic hydrogen thus generated reacts with methane to give methyl radical and hydrogen gas. The carbon-containing radical species eventually deposit onto the diamond seed, forming new diamond carbon-carbon bonds.”

Synthetic diamonds present many possibilities, not only in jewelry industry but also in technology and machinery.

Androstenodione: Good or Bad?

Natural hormone supplements such as androstendione and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) can be very harmful and contradict the assumption that natural is always better. Androstendione’s main function is to build muscle tissue through raising the body testosterone level. “Androstenedione is a precursor molecule to testosterone” and the only difference between androstendione and testosterone is the lack of a hydrogen atom (androstendione lacks this). The liver, in digestion of the compound, adds that hydrogen atom. As the compound is synthesized by the liver, it is said that the body can control amount of testosterone emitted from the supplement, but this is not true. Manufacturers claim that there no danger in getting too much testosterone because the body controls that level. But, there is another factor.

Androstendione is the precursor molecule for estrogen which is the female hormone. When in the body, the conversion from androstendione to estrogen often occurs. We do not adequately know yet the reasons for this conversion. However, it is known that taking the drug to reduce body fat when there is a high percentage of body fat can yield estrogenic effects probably because the compound is fat soluble and settles in fat. When lipid soluble, androstendione converts to estrogen. This does not lead to muscle increase, but on the contrary, causes the growth of mammary tissue (which engenders the risk of breast cancer) and other feministic features. Some studies of the compound have shown a 300% rise in testosterone levels in males and a 600% rise in females, but another fallback is that this quick boost is very short lived and normal testosterone levels reassume within an hour if the supplement is properly converted to testosterone.

Here again is an example of how natural is not always better. Here, the decision of its efficacy is solely based on the molecular structure and molecular interaction with the body. So just remember, using androstendione can, in some cases, prevent the expected testosterone increase and actually increase the estrogenic increase, producing completely opposite results!

The Term “Natural” As Used in Advertising

“FDA regulations are loosely enough defined that it's easy to "get by" with calling some products ‘100% natural’ that in reality, are not even close.” This author of this article believes that people often take advantage of loose FDA policies and misuse the term “natural”. That is, they call their product “natural” when it is really not. This term feeds on the common person’s belief that “natural is better”, and deceives the consumer into buying the product. The author of this website, a soap seller, claims that he would never deceive customers using the common scheme described above. He claims that he only calls his soaps “100 percent natural” if it is true. That is, the soap is all-natural with “essential oils” added. According to the author, these essential oils come from the very essence of the plant, and can thus be considered natural. On the other hand, if the author adds fragrance oils, which are synthetic, he would inform the consumer that the substance was not 100% natural. He believes that it is the customer’s right to know exactly what is in a substance. Finally, he claims that because of his honesty, customers have been much more satisfied with him than with other product sellers.

Thus, the author portrays himself as honest, unlike other men who erroneously dub their products “natural” to appeal to a large group of consumers. While we can not be sure that this author is being totally honest himself, he does acknowledge that the term “natural” is commonly misused for advertising purposes, and that one should always be wary when they hear an advertisement use the word “natural”.

The Argument for Natural Cosmetics

This excerpt from Aubrey Hampton’s and Susan Hussey’s book, Beauty Outside and In, discusses the risks of synthetic chemicals in cosmetics. The skin is a vital organ to the human body—it has many roles, such as eliminating wastes through perspiration, producing vitamin D-3, and protecting the body from foreign substances and infection. Though it blocks out some materials, it can also absorb others, including harmful chemicals. For example, hexachlorophene, an antibacterial once used in soaps, was shown to cause brain damage and even death to infants through absorption into the skin. Though the government strictly regulates exposure to chemicals such as pesticides, disinfectants, preservatives and solvents, the effects of synthetic chemicals in cosmetics have not been studied as thoroughly. The effects of long term exposure are also unknown. Hampton and Hussey advocate the use of herbs and other natural substances in cosmetics instead of the preservatives, emulsifiers, and synthetic colors used in mass-produced cosmetics, as they have no effect in enhancing beauty but only make the product appealing to sell. “It just makes sense that the products you put on your skin should be made of ingredients that have been around at least as long as you have...our argument is that, given the overall contamination of the environment with manmade chemicals, you’re better off without them.”

What’s the Story with Tartrazine?

Tartrazine is a synthetic yellow food colorant which has been subject to various erroneous claims that it yields long term harmful effects. This information is exaggerated and based off of only a few incidences in which Tartrazine stimulated allergic reactions. Many of these mishaps were due to incorrect pharmaceutical preparation of the compound and not the compound itself. In fact Tartrazine has clinically been shown to only cause adverse reactions in one to ten out of a ten thousand people. These side effects generally include urticaria (skin rashes), asthma, purpura (skin bruising), seizure-like shocks. But intolerance to the substance is so rare that intolerance to milk, wheat, etc. is more prevalent that Tartrazine intolerance. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations along with the World Health Organization has established that the daily intake of Tartrazine can be up to 7.5 milligram of the substance per kilogram of body weight. Yet, in the late 70’s organizations within the United States and the United Kingdom, such as the Natural Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council set daily intake levels well below these. These levels were adjusted 1987 and restrictions on Tartrazine usage were reduced due to new information which reflected the rarity in Tartrazine hypersensitivity. So remember that Tartrazine should be viewed in lieu of individual past history with the compound and not in light of generalized emotional claims which condemn the additive altogether.

Man’s Prejudice For Nature

In her article, Holly Phaneuf discusses this issue: “We ideally don’t judge people based on their origin, who raised them, or what country they came from. We ideally judge them by their behavior. Why is it so hard for us to do the same, for molecules?”

People have somehow developed the notion that natural is always better, safer, and more efficient than synthetic. But there are so many counterexamples. Our blog has mentioned a few, and Phaneuf mentions others, such as snake venom and toxic mushrooms.

Phaneuf argues that how safe and efficient a substance depends on how its molecules behave, not where they come from. When Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic ammonium cyanate, he disproved the idea that man cannot reproduce natural substances. Many other scientists have also been able to reproduce substances that occur in nature. According to every test these substances are put through, the synthetic substance is generally identical in behavior to the natural substance.

Yet people still prefer natural. Why? Where did this fallible notion spring from? While there is no sure answer, Holly Phaneuf attempts to answer this question. Religion has it that ever since mankind existed, humans have been inherently sinful. So, we subconsciously believe that anything created by man is “sinful”, while anything created by nature is not. Thus, we want to veer away from the sinful nature of man-made substances and stick with natural “sinless” substances.

Although it is hard to imagine how a substance can be sinful or sinless, Phaneuf believes that our belief that "natural is better" stems from our religious belief that humankind is sinful. She wants us to see that the notion that natural is better is not always true. Behavior, not origin, dictates a substance's efficiency.