Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Actually, natural is neutral

Nature Human Behaviour volume 4, pages 989–990 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Most people in the Western, developed world prefer natural things, especially foods. We posit that there is neither theoretical nor empirical support for the widespread beliefs about the superiority of natural entities with respect to human welfare. Nature is not particularly benevolent.

There is a widespread preference for naturalness, especially for natural food, in the Western, developed world. Most people are willing to pay more for foods that are labelled ‘all natural’ and ‘organic’. Foods with these types of labels (sometimes called ‘clean labels’) are not only strongly preferred, but also increasingly prevalent1,2. Beyond food, many people regularly use natural and herbal medicines and natural personal care products. People are drawn to these natural labels because they think nature is safe and benevolent. However, these beliefs are often wrong. Nature did not evolve to help mankind. Nature is not particularly benevolent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Rozin, P., Fischler, C. & Shields-Argelès, C. Appetite 59, 448–455 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asioli, D. et al. Food Res. Int. 99, 58–71 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rozin, P. Judgm. Decis. Mak 1, 91–97 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. & Slovic, P. Risk Anal. 12, 215–232 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Li, M. & Chapman, G. B. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2859–2878 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., Wirz, C. D., Brossard, D. & Rozin, P. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 38, 459–479 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 315–324 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernbach, P. M., Light, N., Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y. & Rozin, P. Nat. Hum. Behav 3, 251–256 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ames, B. N., Profet, M. & Gold, L. S. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 7777–7781 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Geller, A. I. et al. N. Engl. J. Med 373, 1531–1540 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Sydney E. Scott

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Paul Rozin

Authors
  1. Sydney E. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Rozin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sydney E. Scott.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scott, S.E., Rozin, P. Actually, natural is neutral. Nat Hum Behav 4, 989–990 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0891-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0891-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing