Appeal to Nature Fallacy

“Your tea has artificial flavorings, so my drink is healthier than yours,” says Bob, as he drinks a glass of maple syrup.

You commit the appeal to nature fallacy when you assume something is better because it is “natural,” or worse because it is “unnatural.” This often shows up in pseudoscientific health posts—for example, claiming that natural treatments are superior to “chemical” ones, or that you shouldn’t eat a certain food because it is full of chemicals.

Many natural things are harmful, such as poisonous mushrooms and berries, and many “unnatural” things are crucial for health, such as antibiotics.

What is “natural,” anyway? Everything is made of chemicals, and ultimately everything comes from nature. Some people use pronounceability as a rule of thumb—“If you can’t pronounce an ingredient, don’t eat it.” But scientific names are often hard to say. For example, ascorbic acid sounds intimidating, yet it’s just vitamin C.

Advertisers exploit this bias with labels like “Natural Choice.” Because “natural” is often loosely defined, it can mean almost anything. Consumers shouldn’t fear ingredients that sound “unnatural,” and they shouldn’t buy products merely because the word “natural” appears on the packaging. This fallacy can be dangerous when people choose less effective but more “natural” treatments for illness.

We often fall for the appeal to nature because it simplifies decisions. A better approach is to weigh the relevant evidence—safety, efficacy, dosage, side effects, quality control—rather than jumping to conclusions based on how “natural” something seems.

Next fallacy (Hasty Generalization)

Back to the Logical Fallacy Handbook