In my article Chemicals and Naturals it was stated “… that a chemical is exactly the same whether it occurs naturally or is produced in a chemical factory.”
For me, the debate is not whether the chemical is the same in nature as it is when produced in the lab but the substance or plant that contains the chemical, the delivery mechanism is different. The failing is the difference of administering chemicals in isolation of the plant from which they came or from which they were copied.
This is an intrinsically human interventionist policy which stems from the postulate that man can do it better, as you say later, “chemical companies improving on nature”. But this is indeed largely to exploit a market. What is the motivation apart from profit?
Is Monsanto ethical in its approach to GM Maize and the dependency that it has built into its contracts by producing plants that are unfertile? It is however of course great business!!
Take for instance: horse manure, a good example. What is better; to build it using a horse or to synthesise it in a lab? Undoubtedly, we can and do isolate the fertilizers (nitrates) but if we used more horses, there would be more fertilizer.
Why synthesis, which is energy consuming instead of growing the item concerned. Synthesis is energy consuming, whereas growing is beneficial and in harmony with nature.
