A few years ago I spent a morning in a rainforest in northern Madagascar. I remember standing in a fifty-metre circle of trees and vines, knowing perfectly well from the guide that there were hundreds of vertebrates and a genuinely uncountable number of invertebrates in that patch of forest with me, and being able to see almost none of them. The guide could hear a lemur move sixty metres away. To me the canopy was a wall of leaf. Every insect, every reptile, every small mammal within reach of us had been shaped by ten million generations of ancestors whose entire life project was not being noticed. The animals with slightly worse camouflage that season were already inside something.

That is what nature actually looks like from the inside. The stillness is not peace. It is the surface of an arms race that has been running without a single ceasefire for hundreds of millions of years, and every quiet leaf is a treaty paid for in bodies. The animals with the good camouflage are the descendants of the ones whose parents had merely acceptable camouflage. The ones with acceptable camouflage are in the stomach of the predator, and the predator’s own ancestors starved to death whenever their senses were not sharp enough. Every living thing you cannot see is running a full-body defensive programme. Every predator you cannot see is running a full-body offensive one. And that is a rainforest, one of the most productive places on the planet, and it still contains no comfort.

The romantic version of nature, gentle, balanced, healing, restorative, the version that sells wellness retreats and herbal teas, is not what any biologist who has spent a night in a real forest would recognise. Nature is a machine that has been running competition, at fine grain, without pause, since long before us. That is what “natural” means in the parts of the planet we did not domesticate.

That chemistry does not stay in the forest. It gets harvested, dried, relabelled, and sold, and every so often it arrives somewhere it can do real damage.

In May 1990 a private slimming clinic in Brussels tweaked its house recipe. The old formula went out; a new one came in. It combined a diuretic, a laxative, belladonna extract, and two Chinese herbs. Two of the ingredients would turn out to be the same word.

The clinic wanted Stephania tetrandra, a plant Traditional Chinese Medicine calls han fang ji. What arrived in the batches was Aristolochia fangchi, called guang fang ji. Two roots, two species, one pinyin syllable that both share. A shipping label collapsed on itself and nobody caught it.

Nine women arrived at Belgian nephrology wards over 1991 and 1992 with kidneys that were failing fast and for no obvious reason. All nine had been on the slimming programme. All nine had renal biopsies showing extensive interstitial fibrosis with no glomerular disease, a pattern nobody had seen before. Jean-Louis Vanherweghem wrote it up in the Lancet in 1993.^[1]

The follow-up epidemiology found more than a hundred cases from the same clinic. Seven years later Nortier and colleagues tracked the cohort in the New England Journal of Medicine: 39 of the ill women had by then progressed to end-stage renal disease requiring transplant or dialysis, so the kidneys and ureters were removed prophylactically before immunosuppression could start. Eighteen of those 39 already had urothelial carcinoma sitting in the removed tissue.^[2] Just under half.

The toxin was aristolochic acid, a plant-defence chemical the Aristolochia genus uses to punish anything that eats it. It forms covalent adducts with adenine residues in DNA, damages the kidney tubules, and lodges a signature mutational pattern in urothelial cells. The International Agency for Research on Cancer put mixtures containing it in Group 1 (the top tier, human carcinogens known to cause cancer) in 2012.^[3]

Every one of those women thought she was buying a safer, gentler way to lose weight. She was buying a plant that had spent tens of millions of years learning to hurt whatever tried to browse it.

What people actually mean by “natural”

The reason the Brussels story lands like a scandal, and not like an unlucky food-poisoning outbreak, is the word around the product. Nobody at that clinic was selling patients “a slightly obscure phytotoxin.” They were selling a Chinese herb, and the word Chinese herb, in the same way as herbal, plant-based, botanical, or natural, does a specific piece of work in the buyer’s head. It tells her the thing is gentle. It tells her the side-effect burden is small. It tells her, quietly, that whoever formulated it was on her side.

You can see the same mechanism running in almost every corner of the wellness aisle. Sleep tea is safer than a sleep drug. A natural stimulant is cleaner than a pharmaceutical one. Herbal libido support is friendlier than a prescription. An essential oil is a milder alternative to an ointment. A raw juice cleanse is somehow healing where an infusion drip in a clinic is invasive. The vocabulary is not doing decorative work. It is doing risk work, on behalf of the buyer. When somebody says I prefer natural, what they almost always mean, in the same breath, is I want fewer side effects, less harshness, and less chance the thing will hurt me.

This intuition is powerful enough that it survives being explicitly contradicted. Patients who are told a plant extract and a synthetic drug are chemically identical, atom for atom, still often choose the plant one. Sellers know this. That is why the labels look the way they do, and why the same active molecule can be sold at a premium if a leaf is drawn on the box.

The rest of this essay is an argument that this intuition is not just imprecise. It is backwards. But it is worth naming clearly first, because if we skip it and go straight to the biology, the essay lands as a pedantic exercise, not as the correction of a very common and very expensive mistake.

The word “natural” does not mean anything

You would expect a word doing so much work in supermarket aisles to have a definition. It does not.

The US Food and Drug Administration has never formally defined “natural” as a food-labelling term. Its own posted policy admits this and explains that the agency has “considered the term ‘natural’ to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.” The same policy notes it does not address “food production methods, such as the use of pesticides,” “food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation,” or “whether the term ‘natural’ should describe any nutritional or other health benefit.”^[4] The word carries no promise about growing conditions, processing, or the presence or absence of anything harmful.

In the European Union it is not much better. There is no harmonised legal definition of “natural” as a general food claim. What is regulated is the specific “naturally low in X” construction, which is only allowed when the food inherently meets the same nutritional threshold that would justify a standard nutrition claim.^[5] For cosmetics the ISO 16128 standard exists, but it is a voluntary industry document, not EU law.^[6]

So one of the most consequential words in modern food and wellness marketing is not defined by the two largest regulators on the planet. That is not an oversight. It is the point. A word with no definition is a word you cannot violate.

Why the intuition feels true anyway

If the label is empty, why does it still feel like a promise?

Paul Rozin, the University of Pennsylvania psychologist who spent decades studying disgust and food, has probably done more careful work on this than anyone. His 2005 paper The Meaning of “Natural”: Process More Important than Content, in Psychological Science, walked participants through pairs of items that started identical and diverged by history: one was frozen, one was not; one was extracted, one was synthesised; one crossed a laboratory, one did not. Chemical transformations lowered perceived naturalness far more than physical ones. In the drug arm, when participants were told a plant-extracted drug and a laboratory-synthesised drug were chemically identical, a large fraction still preferred the plant one.^[7] The chemistry did not matter. The story did.

That preference has a story of its own, and part of it is survivorship bias. The plants and animals we eat, the mushrooms our grandmothers taught us to pick, the roots our great-grandfathers stewed for fevers, those are the ones our ancestors did not die from. Culture ran a long, cruel selection over ten thousand years, discarding the households and villages that made the wrong call, and handing down the ones that made the right call as recipes. The recipes look like innate wisdom. They are actually a filter with a lot of graves behind it.

The moment you step outside that filter, into a plant your culture never learned to prepare, into a dose a traditional practitioner would never use, into a supplement bottle that ships a concentrated extract nobody has ever eaten this way, the filter stops protecting you. You have left the domesticated dataset.

Plants fight with chemistry because they cannot run

Plants are in that same arms race, with a specific handicap. They cannot flee. A plant can grow taller, grow thorns, or grow poisonous. Growing poisonous is cheap, scalable, and works while the plant is asleep. So plants specialise in chemistry.

Caffeine is a nerve toxin that paralyses and kills insects. Capsaicin is a mammal deterrent whose whole job is to feel like being burned. Nicotine is a broad-spectrum insecticide invented millions of years before we thought to sell it in cartridges. Solanine and the related glycoalkaloids in green potatoes damage cell membranes and inhibit acetylcholinesterase. Cyanogenic glycosides release hydrogen cyanide when the plant tissue is crushed, which is what the enzymes in a bruised bitter almond do the moment your teeth close on it. Pyrrolizidine alkaloids in comfrey are prodrugs the liver activates into DNA-damaging adducts, and the liver is where the damage lands. In each case the chemical exists precisely because it hurts whatever tries to eat the plant. Sometimes we happen to like the dose. That is a lucky accident, not a design decision.

Two implications follow. First: a molecule is not “gentler” because a plant made it. The plant made it specifically to hurt things that ate it. Second: your body has no privileged interface for plant chemistry. Your liver and kidneys are the interface, and they cost real work to run.

The Red Queen and “it’s been around forever”

The other common defence of natural products is that they have “been used safely for centuries.” This inverts the biology.

In 1973 the evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen published A New Evolutionary Law (in a journal he had to found himself, because a page-charge dispute had kept it out of the mainstream ones), proposing what became known as the Red Queen hypothesis.^[8] The idea, borrowed from Through the Looking Glass, is that species evolve continuously just to hold their ground against adversaries who are also evolving. There is no plateau where a species is safely adapted and can stop running. Predator and prey, host and parasite, plant and browser: all of them are pushing each other, all the time.

This means the fact that a plant chemical has been around for centuries does not tell you it is safe. It tells you the arms race is still running. The plant is being eaten and the plant is still fighting back. The rat-poison alkaloids in bitter almonds have not softened themselves out of politeness because we like the flavour. Aristolochic acid is not less carcinogenic because Aristolochia has been on Earth longer than we have. Longevity of a compound is evidence that it works, not that it is friendly.

A short catalogue of natural things that will hurt you

None of the items below are exotic. Every one is a substance that occurs in nature, is sold or foraged or drunk somewhere in the world, and has hurt or killed people in numbers that matter.

Substance	Origin	What it does
Aristolochic acid	Aristolochia spp.	Kidney failure and urothelial carcinoma. IARC Group 1.[3]
Aflatoxin B1	Aspergillus flavus on maize and peanuts	Liver carcinoma; estimated to explain 4.6–28.2% of global hepatocellular carcinoma cases.[9]
Amatoxins	Amanita phalloides (death cap)	Inhibit RNA polymerase II. Fulminant hepatic failure; 10–20% case-fatality with modern intensive care.[10]
Pyrrolizidine alkaloids	Comfrey and many “herbal teas”	Hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome. FDA advised removal from dietary supplements in 2001.[11]
Cyanogenic glycosides (linamarin)	Cassava, if not properly processed	Konzo, an irreversible spastic paraparesis endemic to parts of sub-Saharan Africa.[12]
Phytohaemagglutinin	Raw or undercooked red kidney beans	Acute vomiting and diarrhoea within 1–3 hours. As few as four or five raw beans is enough.[13]
Glycoalkaloids (solanine)	Green or sprouted potatoes	Gastrointestinal and neurological toxicity above roughly 200 mg per kg fresh weight.[14]
Amygdalin (cyanide precursor)	Bitter apricot kernels	EFSA calculates that an adult can eat about three small kernels, or less than half a large one, before exceeding the acute reference dose.[15]
Pathogens	Raw milk and cheese	Between 1998 and 2018 the US recorded 202 raw-milk outbreaks. Per gram consumed, raw dairy causes about 840 times more illnesses and 45 times more hospitalisations than pasteurised.[16]
Radon	A noble gas seeping out of granite and soil	Between 3% and 14% of lung cancers, depending on the country. IARC Group 1.[17]
Arsenic	Groundwater in the Ganges delta	The largest mass poisoning in history. Roughly 35–77 million Bangladeshis chronically exposed above the WHO limit of 10 µg/L.[18]
Asbestos	Fibrous silicate minerals	Mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis. All commercial forms are IARC Group 1.[19]
Solar ultraviolet radiation	The Sun	Melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. IARC Group 1.[20]
Tobacco	A cured leaf	Leading preventable cause of death worldwide. A plant, smoked.
Herbal supplements as a category	Various	Herbal and dietary supplements have gone from 7% of enrolled US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network cases in 2004 to roughly a third today.[21]

Nothing on that list needs a factory to make it.

What actually made us safer: processing

If plants and pathogens are the problem, processing is the tool that has done the most to solve it. Almost every major public-health gain of the last two centuries lives in this column.

Cooking. Richard Wrangham’s Catching Fire argues cooked food is not a cultural nicety but the physiological platform our species runs on: softer tissue, more digestible starch, kill-off of most pathogens, and a big extra energy dividend from the same weight of raw material. The energetic argument is quantitative and testable, and the follow-up work by Wrangham and colleagues has held up in the lab.^[22] Cooking is processing. It made us.

Nixtamalization. Boiling maize with an alkali (lime, wood ash) dissolves the pericarp and, crucially, frees the bound niacin that raw maize keeps out of reach of the human gut. Populations that adopted the technique did not get pellagra. Populations that grew maize but not the alkali step did. Joseph Goldberger established at the start of the twentieth century that pellagra was a dietary deficiency disease; Conrad Elvehjem identified nicotinic acid, that is, niacin, as the specific factor in 1937. Nixtamalization had been solving the problem for maybe three thousand years before anyone knew what the missing molecule was.^[23]

Pasteurisation. Heating milk to a controlled temperature for a controlled time kills the pathogens the natural version reliably carries: Listeria, Salmonella, Campylobacter, shiga-toxigenic E. coli. The 840-to-1 illness ratio above is the difference this single processing step makes.^[16]

Fortification. Iodised salt has taken the number of countries classified as iodine-deficient from 113 in 1993 to 19 in 2019, saving an enormous stock of children from goitre and preventable intellectual disability.^[24] Folic acid added to enriched grain in the US since 1998 dropped the birth prevalence of neural tube defects by roughly a third.^[25] Vitamin D added to milk in the 1930s effectively ended endemic rickets in industrialised cities where the disease had been rampant.^[26] None of these interventions is natural. All of them have prevented more suffering than most drugs.

Purification and dose control. Willow bark had been used for pain for centuries. It contains salicin, plus a variable amount of tannins and other compounds, plus whatever grew on the tree that year. Felix Hoffmann’s synthesis of stable acetylsalicylic acid at Bayer in 1897 (Arthur Eichengrün, his colleague, has an important claim on the discovery too) let you take a specific milligramme dose every time.^[27] Foxglove had been used for dropsy for even longer, and killed patients regularly, because the therapeutic dose and the fatal dose are close together and the leaves vary. William Withering’s 1785 monograph An Account of the Foxglove is the first systematic clinical account of how to titrate it; digoxin, the purified molecule, arrived later.^[28] A tea you could not dose became a pill you could.

The pattern is consistent. Every time we picked apart a natural product, found the active molecule, characterised its dose-response, and delivered a controlled amount, outcomes got better. It was never the plant that healed. It was the specific molecule at the specific dose, and processing is what gave us either.

The steelman

You could read all this as an argument that industrial food and synthetic chemistry are strictly better than the plant. That would be wrong, and it is worth being blunt about it.

Industrially produced trans fatty acids, the partially hydrogenated oils in cheap fried food, spreads, and bakery items through most of the twentieth century, cost the world up to 500,000 premature coronary-heart-disease deaths a year at peak, per WHO estimates.^[29] They are a purely industrial molecule, adopted at scale, and lethal. Leaded gasoline pushed lead into every child in the industrialised world for six decades; Bruce Lanphear’s 2005 pooled international analysis showed a 7.4-point IQ drop associated with a lifetime blood-lead rise from 1 to 10 µg/dL, and the effect was steepest at the lowest doses.^[30] PFAS, the “forever chemicals,” are now regulated by the US EPA at four parts per trillion in drinking water for the two most-studied members, PFOA and PFOS.^[31] The C8 Science Panel, seven years of court-mandated epidemiology in the DuPont contamination zone in West Virginia, found probable links between PFOA exposure and testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and high cholesterol.^[32] Tobacco is a plant, but industrial cigarette manufacturing is what made mass lung cancer possible, and the industry marketed the product as safe.

Ultra-processed food is the current version of the same argument. Kevin Hall’s 2019 inpatient trial at the NIH put twenty adults on ultra-processed and matched unprocessed diets, letting them eat as much as they liked; on the ultra-processed arm they ran a surplus of roughly 508 calories a day and gained weight.^[33] The effect is real. What Hall’s paper says, though, is worth reading carefully. The mechanisms he documents are energy density, hyperpalatability, low fibre, and eating rate. It is not “processing” as an abstract category that made his subjects overeat; it is those specific properties. Cheese is processed. Bread is processed. Yogurt is processed. Insulin, the drug that keeps a Type 1 diabetic alive, is extremely processed. “Processed” as an adjective sweeps up things that raise mortality and things that lower it into the same bucket.

The steelman, then, is not that natural is good and industrial is bad. It is that our technology is fast. It has invented and deployed molecules and processes at a pace that our ability to measure the consequences cannot always match. We poisoned children with lead for two generations before we knew what we were doing. We coated the planet in PFAS before we understood the human half-lives. That is a real problem, and it is a problem about how long it takes to see harm, not about the intrinsic evil of synthesis.

A better heuristic

If neither “natural” nor “processed” is doing useful work as a label, what should you actually ask when you are trying to decide whether to eat, drink, take, or apply the thing? Origin gives you nothing. Look at everything else.

Dose. How much are you taking, how often, and for how long? A cup of coffee is caffeine at a dose we tolerate; a scoop of pure caffeine powder from a supplement website has killed people. Aspirin at 81 mg reduces heart attacks in the right patient; aspirin at 30 grams kills. Vitamin A retinol at recommended intake is essential; the same vitamin at pharmacological dose in pregnancy is a potent teratogen. The molecule doesn’t care where you bought it. It cares how much of it you gave it.

Mechanism. What does the thing actually do inside the body, and does anyone know? A supplement whose vendor cannot tell you which enzyme it inhibits, which receptor it binds, or which pathway it modulates, is a supplement whose vendor is asking you to bet on ignorance. Aristolochic acid does something specific: it adducts adenine in your DNA. Digoxin does something specific: it inhibits the sodium-potassium ATPase in cardiac cells. Every useful molecule can be described this precisely, in principle. Vagueness about mechanism is not humility. It is often marketing.

Evidence in whom. Rodent, cell culture, one Petri dish, a wellness anecdote, a large randomised trial in humans: these are not the same thing and the labels are usually placed to blur the difference. “Backed by science” means nothing if the science is a mouse study or a Petri-dish signal that never survived contact with a real patient.

Comparator. Better or worse than what? A natural remedy is not competing against nothing. It is competing against the best established alternative, including doing nothing. If the honest comparator would be a proven drug, that’s the comparator. If the honest comparator is a lifestyle change with decades of outcome data behind it, that’s the comparator. Removing the comparator is how bad interventions look good.

Who profits. Every seller of every intervention on Earth has a story. The story worth listening to is the one you would trust a friend, without an interest in your buying decision, to tell you. When the seller and the source are the same, discount aggressively. When the seller is a supplement industry whose regulatory regime does not require them to show the product does what it claims before it goes on the shelf, discount more.

Origin is not on that list.

What the arms race really implies

The lesson from Aristolochia is not that plants are bad. Plants are enormously useful. Almost every important drug class has a plant somewhere in its ancestry, and most of the food we eat is a domesticated version of one. The lesson is that plants are not on your side. They never were. They are running their own game, and the parts of their chemistry that we happen to enjoy or benefit from are the leftover byproducts of a very old war.

The counterpart argument does not conclude what advertising would like it to conclude. Nothing in any of this makes synthetic molecules or industrial food inherently safe. The record is right there: trans fats, leaded petrol, tobacco marketed as tonic, PFAS in the tap water. Our own technology can be as harmful as any plant’s chemistry, and it can spread faster, and it is often more novel than our ability to catch what it does. The arms race cuts both ways, and one of the ways it cuts is that we can invent damage the biosphere had not thought of yet.

What origin genuinely does tell you is close to zero. A molecule made by a laboratory is not automatically safe. A molecule made by a leaf is not automatically safe. Both may be, and both may not, and there is no shortcut around actually looking. Dose. Mechanism. Evidence in whom. Comparator. Who profits. If a seller (of a supplement, a drug, a diet, a piece of chemistry) is not willing to answer those five questions in front of you, that is the answer.

Nature is not on your side. It never was. What is genuinely different about us is that we are the only species in the arms race that gets to author the terms. We should use that power carefully, and we should stop confusing it for a blessing.

References

1. Vanherweghem, J.-L., Depierreux, M., Tielemans, C., Abramowicz, D., Dratwa, M., Jadoul, M., et al. (1993). Rapidly progressive interstitial renal fibrosis in young women: association with slimming regimen including Chinese herbs. The Lancet, 341(8842), 387–391. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8094166/

2. Nortier, J. L., Martinez, M.-C. M., Schmeiser, H. H., Arlt, V. M., Bieler, C. A., Petein, M., et al. (2000). Urothelial carcinoma associated with the use of a Chinese herb (Aristolochia fangchi). New England Journal of Medicine, 342(23), 1686–1692. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200006083422301

3. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012). Aristolochic acids and plants containing them. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100A: Pharmaceuticals. https://publications.iarc.who.int/121

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Use of the term “natural” on food labeling. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling

5. European Parliament and Council. (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union, L 404. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/oj

6. International Organization for Standardization. (2016). ISO 16128-1: Guidelines on technical definitions and criteria for natural and organic cosmetic ingredients and products. https://www.iso.org/standard/62503.html

7. Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16(8), 652–658. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x

8. Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1, 1–30. https://www.mn.uio.no/cees/english/services/van-valen/evolutionary-theory/volume-1/vol-1-no-1-pages-1-30-l-van-valen-a-new-evolutionary-law.pdf

9. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012). Aflatoxins. IARC Monographs, Volume 100F, 225–248. https://publications.iarc.who.int/123 · Liu, Y., & Wu, F. (2010). Global burden of aflatoxin-induced hepatocellular carcinoma: a risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6), 818–824. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.0901388

10. Santi, L., Maggioli, C., Mastroroberto, M., Tufoni, M., Napoli, L., & Caraceni, P. (2012). Acute liver failure caused by Amanita phalloides poisoning. International Journal of Hepatology, 2012, 487480. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/487480

11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2001). FDA advises dietary supplement manufacturers to remove comfrey products from the market. https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplement-products-ingredients/fda-advises-dietary-supplement-manufacturers-remove-comfrey-products-market

12. Kashala-Abotnes, E., Okitundu, D., Mumba, D., Boivin, M. J., Tylleskär, T., & Tshala-Katumbay, D. (2019). Konzo: a distinct neurological disease associated with food (cassava) cyanogenic poisoning. Brain Research Bulletin, 145, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2018.07.001

13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). Bad Bug Book: Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook (2nd ed., pp. 254–256, Phytohaemagglutinin). https://www.fda.gov/files/food/published/Bad-Bug-Book-2nd-Edition-(PDF).pdf

14. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (2020). Risk assessment of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products. EFSA Journal, 18(8), e06222. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6222

15. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (2016). Acute health risks related to the presence of cyanogenic glycosides in raw apricot kernels and products derived from raw apricot kernels. EFSA Journal, 14(4), 4424. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4424

16. Koski, L., Kisselburgh, H., Landsman, L., Hulkower, R., Salah, Z., Nichols, M., et al. Foodborne illness outbreaks linked to unpasteurised milk and relationship to changes in state laws, United States, 1998–2018. Epidemiology and Infection. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987020/ · Costard, S., Espejo, L., Groenendaal, H., & Zagmutt, F. J. (2017). Outbreak-related disease burden associated with consumption of unpasteurized cow’s milk and cheese, United States, 2009–2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 23(6), 957–964. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/23/6/15-1603_article

17. World Health Organization. (2009). WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public Health Perspective. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547673

18. Smith, A. H., Lingas, E. O., & Rahman, M. (2000). Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(9), 1093–1103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11019458/

19. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012). Asbestos (chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite). IARC Monographs, Volume 100C, 219–309. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304374/

20. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012). Solar and ultraviolet radiation. IARC Monographs, Volume 100D. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/iarc-monographs-on-the-evaluation-of-carcinogenic-risks-to-humans-volume-100d

21. Navarro, V. J., Barnhart, H., Bonkovsky, H. L., Davern, T., Fontana, R. J., Grant, L., et al. Liver injury from herbals and dietary supplements in the U.S. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25043597/

22. Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. Basic Books. · Carmody, R. N., Weintraub, G. S., & Wrangham, R. W. (2011). Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing. PNAS, 108(48), 19199–19203. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112128108

23. Carpenter, K. J. (1983). The relationship of pellagra to corn and the low availability of niacin in cereals. Experientia Supplementum, 44, 197–222. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6357846/ · Elvehjem, C. A., Madden, R. J., Strong, F. M., & Woolley, D. W. (1937). Relation of nicotinic acid and nicotinic acid amide to canine black tongue. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 59(9), 1767–1768. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01288a509

24. Iodine Global Network / WHO. Global scorecard on iodine deficiency and universal salt iodization. https://ign.org/scorecard/

25. Williams, J., Mai, C. T., Mulinare, J., Isenburg, J., Flood, T. J., Ethen, M., et al. (2015). Updated estimates of neural tube defects prevented by mandatory folic acid fortification, United States, 1995–2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(1), 1–5. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a2.htm

26. Rajakumar, K. (2003). Vitamin D, cod-liver oil, sunlight, and rickets: a historical perspective. Pediatrics, 112(2), e132–e135. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/112/2/e132/63266/

27. Sneader, W. (2000). The discovery of aspirin: a reappraisal. British Medical Journal, 321(7276), 1591–1594. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1119266/

28. Withering, W. (1785). An Account of the Foxglove, and Some of its Medical Uses: With Practical Remarks on Dropsy, and Other Diseases. Birmingham: M. Swinney. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=2170

29. World Health Organization. Five billion people unprotected from trans fat leading to heart disease. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2023-five-billion-people-unprotected-from-trans-fat-leading-to-heart-disease

30. Lanphear, B. P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P., Bellinger, D. C., et al. (2005). Low-level environmental lead exposure and children’s intellectual function: an international pooled analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 894–899. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1257652/

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. Federal Register, April 26, 2024. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/26/2024-07773/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water-regulation

32. C8 Science Panel. Probable link evaluations. https://www.c8sciencepanel.org/prob_link.html

33. Hall, K. D., Ayuketah, A., Brychta, R., Cai, H., Cassimatis, T., Chen, K. Y., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008