Chemistry 11 Weblog Project: Natural or Synthetic?

2005-11-09T03:19:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-08T23:47:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-08T15:30:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-08T14:52:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-04T07:11:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-11-04T03:36:00.000-08:00

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!

2005-10-31T18:19:00.000-08:00

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”.

2005-10-28T09:58:00.000-07:00

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.”

2005-10-27T19:54:00.000-07:00

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.

2005-10-25T17:29:00.000-07:00

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.

2005-10-21T09:02:00.000-07:00

Extracting Synthetic Vanilla

How does “vanilla extract” differ from the “artificial vanilla flavor” labeled on brands of ice cream, cookies, and cakes?

Vanilla extract comes from the fruit of the vanilla orchid, vanilla planifolia, a tropical plant grown mainly in Mexico, Indonesia, and Madagascar. “Vanilla extract is a dilute solution containing the flavoring and aromatic essence of 100 g of vanilla beans, dissolved in 45% ethyl alcohol by volume. Sugar is often added.” The compound responsible for vanilla’s distinct fragrance and flavor is vanillin (C₈H₈O₃, classified chemically as phenolic aldehyde), which is produced when the beans ripen and ferment. However, the actual plant contains very little vanillin.

Imitation vanilla extract, labeled as “artificial vanilla flavoring”, is a synthetic vanillin derived by oxidizing lignin, a waste product of the wood pulp industry, a method discovered by chemists during the 1950s. The synthetic vanillin is exactly identical to natural vanillin except for the fact that it is much cheaper. For instance, in 1986 the cost of vanilla beans in Madagascar and Indonesia was $38 per pound, but synthetic vanillin was only $3 per pound.

Substituting synthetic vanillin for natural vanillin is safe, practical, and legal as long as it is properly labeled “artificial vanilla flavoring”. Counterfeiters attempt to pass off synthetic vanilla for vanilla extract, but researches have discovered a method to distinguish the two different types of vanillin with a technique called stable isotope ratio analysis (SIRA)”. This method uses the fact that not all carbon atoms have the same mass, and the ratios of carbon in natural and synthetic vanillin vary. As government chemists discover ways of differentiating between natural and synthetic vanillin, counterfeiters continue searching for ways to even more closely match the natural substance.

2005-10-21T08:01:00.000-07:00

Is Both Natural and Synthetic Vitamin E Effective in Protecting Skin from Oxidation?

In cosmetics, unlike other fields of Vitamin E application, both the natural and synthetic forms of Vitamin E are equally effective in combating oxidative stress, which causes damage to the skin. According to BASF, a prominent chemical company, dietary Vitamin E reaches the skin through sebaceous gland secretion. Researches at Freidrich Schiller University in Germany found that increased Vitamin E concentrations in sebum serve to prevent oxidative stress. With this information, Northwestern University experimented with both d-alpha -tocopherol (the natural form of Vitamin E) and dl-alpha-tocopherol (the synthetic form) to see if increasing the intake of either of the substances would lead to proposed protection from oxidation. They theorized that increased intake of either form of Vitamin E would increase the respective concentration in sebum thereby delivering more Vitamin E to the skin’s surface. If this was true, even skin locations with very low sebaceous gland secretion would at least allow increased concentrations of Vitamin E to permeate the skin. They carried out their experiment with twenty-four healthy volunteers and tested both the d-alpha tocopherol and dl-alpha tocopherol forms of Vitamin E on chosen control groups. The supplements were given in the course of two weeks after which blood samples, sebum samples, and lipid extractions from the forearm site (a site with very low sebaceous secretion) showed significant increase in Vitamin E concentrations. The intake of natural and synthetic forms of alpha-tocopherol induced a 92% and 87% increase in sebum Vitamin E concentrations respectively. Also, as an additional positive reaction to increased supplement intake, skin surface lipids showed no change over that period of time, suggesting that no damage was done to them due to oxidation (normally skin surface lipids are damaged due to oxidative stress). So according to these studies, increased intake of either natural or synthetic Vitamin E will induce increased skin protection. This information can be found on this site.

2005-10-19T08:48:00.000-07:00

Dietary Supplements: A Case Where the Common Belief Holds

With much of our blog aimed at denouncing the popular view that “natural is better”, we finally come across one exception in which natural is indeed better than synthetic. “Scientists are able to duplicate the molecular structure of many different substances. If you analyze what's in them, they look identical. However, that does not mean they [natural and synthetic] are the same." This quotation is particularly interesting, because it says that synthetic and natural dietary supplements have identical molecular structures. Yet natural is much more efficient and safe than synthetic. Why? Because of the way the molecules reflect light.

Natural supplements always reflect plane-polarized light to the right, so all the molecules are facing the same direction, and thus they can all be used by the body. Unfortunately, synthetic supplements reflect light both ways, meaning that half of the molecules face the opposite direction and reflect light to the left. However, the body can only use the molecules that reflect plane-polarized light to the right.

What does this mean? That means the body can only utilize half of the molecules in synthetic supplements, and thus synthetic is only half as effective as natural supplements. But not only does the efficiency go down; safety also goes down. Why? Because the unused molecules get stuck in the body, so that they can hinder body processes and cause side effects.

So, while the common belief “natural is better” has been proven false many times, there are indeed times that it holds true.

2005-10-14T10:38:00.000-07:00

Synthetic Progestins versus Natural Progesterone

Society today places a positive emphasis on natural substances rather than synthetic. In the case of hormone replacement supplements for women, what is the difference between natural micronized progesterone and the synthetic progestin, medroxyprogesterone, and which is better?

The major difference between micronized progesterone and medroxyprogesterone is that medroxyprogesterone is in fact not a progesterone at all, but a progestin. Natural progesterone, on the other hand, is an exact chemical duplicate of the steroid hormone produced in the human body. It is produced from yams and soybeans, a process discovered by Russell Marker, a Pennsylvania State College chemistry professor. Though the chemical structure of medroxyprogesterone is very similar to that of natural micronized progesterone, the most minor differences can result in a completely different effect from its natural counter part.

Another difference between the natural and synthetic hormone is the fact that medroxyprogesterone can actually lower one’s blood level of progesterone. Women who took medroxyprogesterone reported headaches, mood swings, and fluid retention, while those who took natural progesterone reported that their mood swings actually diminished. Additionally, since synthetic progestin is 10 to 100 times more potent than its natural counter part, prescribed dosages also vary.

All in all, natural progesterone is an exact duplicate of the body’s progesterone and causes fewer side effects. "In the case of natural progesterone versus synthetic progestins in hormone replacement, natural does appear to be better."

2005-10-14T07:55:00.000-07:00

How Natural May Not Be As Good As Synthetic: Thyroid Medications

“While it is reasonable to assume that synthetic medications are less desirable than natural counterparts, in this case- natural thyroid hormone replacement is definitely not an ideal solution for the vast majority of people.” So far, our blog has been aimed primarily on showing that natural and synthetic substances have the same chemical effect on the body because of similar molecular structure. However, Ruchi Mathur provides an exception. In the case of thyroid medications, Mathur claims that synthetic medications are preferable to natural medications. Natural thyroid medications come from the thyroid glands of pigs. But dosage is an issue in natural medications. It is hard if not impossible to standardize the exact dosage needed for safety and efficiency of the medication to be optimal. One major reason for this is the variations of hormone levels in the glands. T4 and T3 hormones are both present in pig thyroid glands and are both used in thyroid medication. However, there is no way to determine the hormone levels in natural medication. In this way, there is no way to determine the correct dosage, and side effects of the medicine could occur unpredictably.

However, in synthetic preparations such as Levoxyl and Synthroid, it is much easier to determine and control the levels of hormones. Therefore, it is much easier to standardize dosages and minimize side effects.

This example shows that despite the common belief that “natural is better”, and despite the common reality that “natural and synthetic are similar”, sometimes it is indeed better and safer to take synthetic medication, because variables can be controlled more easily.

2005-10-14T07:16:00.000-07:00

What’s the Story with Vitamin E?

Most vitamins are generally identical in their synthetic and natural forms and both forms offer the same benefits. Vitamin E is one of the few exceptions to this. Alluding to the previous mention in an earlier entry that the molecular structure’s interaction with body chemistry determines the efficacy of a compound, we can only ascertain synthetic Vitamin E’s inefficiency with knowledge of its interaction with the body. Let’s begin with the chemistry. Natural Vitamin E (d-alpha tocopherol) has but one isomer whereas synthetic Vitamin E has twelve different isomers and only one of these has the same molecular structure as natural Vitamin E. The other forms “range in potency from 21 percent to 90 percent of natural d-alpha-tocopherol.” How does the body react to this aspect of Vitamin E? Research shows that transport proteins found in the liver select only the isomer of Vitamin E which is the same as its natural form. The body disregards all other isomers of the compound. Since synthetic Vitamin E has twelve isomers, one of which is the natural form, the body will naturally reject much of the synthetic Vitamin E given to it and selectively pick out the natural isomer. This suggests the substance’s inefficiency. To substantiate this, Japanese researchers observed that the level of Vitamin E achieved in the blood stream with a certain dosage of natural Vitamin E required three times that dosage of synthetic Vitamin E. Furthermore, researches at Oregon State University found that synthetic Vitamin E is “preferentially metabolized to alpha-CEHC and excreted.” A test they performed on patients clarified that synthetic Vitamin E, unlike natural Vitamin E, is converted into Alpha-CEHC which is a common urinary metabolite. As synthetic Vitamin E is commonly excreted, it again reflects inefficiency.
So when shopping at the local pharmacy, it is good to know that natural Vitamin E is called d-alpha tocopherol, d-alpha tocopheryl acetate, or d-alpha tocopheryl succinate. The natural form always carries the “d-alpha” prefix. The synthetic form of Vitamin E always has the “dl” prefix instead of the “d-aplha” prefix.
Conclusively, this knowledge that natural Vitamin E is preferable to the synthetic form should not engage the mindset that all vitamins have natural forms preferable to synthetic forms. In fact, most vitamins cannot be distinguished between their natural and synthetic forms, but it can be beneficial to know the exceptions!

2005-10-10T15:44:00.000-07:00

Is Natural Medicine Always Safe?

The common belief is natural is better. Therefore, it is logical to assume that many people would believe that natural herbal remedies should be safe. However, one article challenges this: “Herbal remedies are big business. The number of people using homeopathic preparations is increasing, and young people…But are herbal preparations really safe? Do they deliver what the labels promise?”Michael Cirigliano explores the safety of “natural” herbal treatments. Through his research, he has determined that while some are same and effective, many are neither. He appeals to the reader by noting that “even doctors have no idea what are in these products”. This fact greatly supports the argument that herbal treatments know to be “all-natural” may not always be so safe, effective, or even natural. Another interesting fact that Cirigliano notes is that the FDA is not involved with herbal medicine, because herbs are considered food, no drugs. Cirigliano argues that natural supplements doesn’t necessarily mean safe, and uses “ma huang” as an example. Labelled as “all-natural”, ma-huang is a weigh-loss supplement. But the herbal treatment is linked with kidney stones, hypertension, anxiety, and even death in some cases. Additionally, many poor manufacturing techniques have caused plants to be mixed up. This means that many drugs may have plants not meant to be there, and who knows what those plants could do? Finally, Cirigliano gives tip on how to safely and effectively use herbal treatments. So the next time you decide to take “all-natural” herbal treatments, try to consider the various safety issues involved, and follow the tips in this article.

2005-10-06T17:08:00.000-07:00

Study Shows a Possible New Method of Reducing Cholesterol

In The Fly in the Ointment, Dr. Schwarcz discusses statin drugs to demonstrate the blend of natural and synthetic drugs in modern pharmacology. Statin drugs lower cholesterol levels by impairing the activity of an enzyme called hydroxylmethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (HMG CoA reductase)—an essential enzyme needed in the body’s synthesis of cholesterol. Schwarcz explains that cholesterol is actually necessary to the human body, as it is an “important component of cell membranes and the precursor for important biomolecules such as testosterone and bile acids.” Researchers have been pursuing a substance that would limit cholesterol synthesis in the body, so that cells would need to consume more cholesterol from the bloodstream, thereby reducing its concentration there.

Researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center have suggested a new approach that may enhance the effect of statins. “The researchers now demonstrate that lanosterol—an intermediate compound in the synthetic pathway—mediates feedback control over the rate of cholesterol production by stimulating the degradation of cholesterol-building reductase,” says Russell Debose-Boyd, senior author of the study. Cells respond to a high cholesterol diet by shutting down its internal synthesis. Lanosterol actually leads proteins to mark reductase for destruction by attaching a protein called ubiquitin. Since reductase is required in early stages of synthesis, its availability determines how much cholesterol is produced.

These studies propose that drugs that mimic lanosterol can improve statins’ long-term ability to lower cholesterol. This is because as reductase function is impaired by the statin drug, the availability of regulatory intermediates that control reductase activity also becomes limited, which can lead to an increase in active reductase that becomes progressively harder to control. A compound similar to lanosterol would ensure continued degradation of the reductase, which would prevent this problem.

2005-10-06T14:39:00.000-07:00

Natural and Synthetic Vitamin C: Are They Really Different?

“Natural and synthetic ascorbic acid are chemically identical…There appears to be no clinically significant difference in the bioavailability and bioactivity of natural ascorbic acid and synthetic ascorbic acid." This asserts the most important idea that Jane Higdon intends to show through her study of different forms of vitamin C (or ascorbic acid): that there is no difference between natural or synthetic forms of vitamin C, at least in terms of chemistry and biology. Jane Higdon expands upon Schwarcz’s “The Fly in the Ointment”, which mentions vitamin C as a substance that is most often used as synthetic, by asserting that natural and synthetic vitamin C are equally efficient. Her point is made through examples. For example, scientists believed that by manipulating vitamin C in order to slow the rate it exits the body would increase its absorption. But Higdon points out that studies showed that the absorption and bioavailability (how much of the vitamin the body can use) were identical for both the manipulated and the natural vitamin C. Additionally, mineral ascorbate, a synthetic form of vitamin C, was designed to limit gastrointestinal pain. However, research has so far presented minimal evidence that the synthetic form actually produces less pain than the natural form. In a third example, Higdon discusses Ester-C, in which vitamin C was manipulated to increase its bioavailability. Although, manufacuturers claimed their product to increase the bioavailability of vitamin C, no published study supported the claim, and a study that was published proved the opposite, that there was no bioavailability difference in Ester C and in most other forms of vitamin C. This published study is found in Johnston, C.S. & Luo, B.'s Comparison of the absorption and excretion of three commercially available sources of vitamin C. (Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Thus, through examples, Jane Higdon asserts that all natural and synthetic forms of vitamin C are biologically and chemically identical.

2005-10-06T11:08:00.000-07:00

Is Natural the Way to Go?

Today’s vitamins and minerals come from both synthetic and natural sources. Some claim that natural sources are better. But this is not a substantial claim. Synthetic sources can be equally as effective and safe. Let’s begin with the basics. Synthetic compounds share very similar if not identical molecular structures with natural compounds. With this similarity in molecular structure, the synthetic compound will essentially be identical to the natural compound in every aspect, including the effect on the body. Synthetic compounds imitating poisonous compounds in nature will be detrimental to the body, whereas synthetic compounds bearing the structure of a natural nutrient can be beneficial. So regardless of a synthetic compound’s accuracy in imitation of a natural compound, the real matter at hand is whether or not the synthetic substance has a molecular structure compatible with the human body. So, it all depends on the molecular structure and not whether a compound is synthetic or natural. For instance, most of the Vitamin C is produced synthetically. According to Dr. Schwarcz, in The Fly in the Ointment, Vitamin C is initially glucose which is then mixed with hydrogen at very high pressures to produce sorbitol. Sorbitol is fermented with bacteria and many following chemical reactions eventually yield the product we know as Vitamin C. We must closely inspect whether the synthetic compound’s molecular structure agrees with our chemical makeup. But, if anything, synthetic may be more beneficial as it is often purer and cannot be contaminated as easily. So, conclusively, as Supplement Quality (a leading online resource regarding supplements) tells us, we cannot arbitrarily say that natural is better unless we “are given some clear and objective information about why the ‘natural’ one is better.” For more information visit this link.

2005-10-02T09:22:00.000-07:00

Update!

Today, five new links were added to our weblog. These links give introductory information about our topic. They explore the differences between natural vs. synthetic vitamins, hormones, drugs, and soaps. They also talk about what natural and synthetic truly means, and how the word "natural" is used in advertising.

2005-09-25T08:07:00.000-07:00

Weblog Created!

On Sunday, September 25, our group created our weblog. Our weblog will be focused on examining the advatages and disadvantages of natural vs. synthetic products.