ARE WE COMMITTING A NATURALISTIC FALLACY?

BERTRAND is an organic complete-nutrition powder. Each package contains all the nutrients currently recommended for an average adult according to the current state of nutritional science and the Nutrient Reference Values (NRV). All the nutrients in BERTRAND come from natural sources such as grains, oilseeds, almonds, nuts, fruit powders, and many more.

Our focus on the natural origins of nutrients means that we currently face accusations almost every day that we are committing the naturalistic fallacy. This accusation is usually accompanied by the claim that we must be aware of this, yet are knowingly misleading our customers by suggesting a quality advantage that does not exist through our focus on naturalness and organic certification.
The assumption made by proponents of this position is: A complete-nutrition powder that provides nutrients synthetically is cheaper and at least as good or better, and organic is a scam.

The situation
There are currently two competing models for complete-nutrition powders, such as BERTRAND. On the one hand, there is our product: a composition of various natural ingredients whose overall nutritional profile meets current nutritional recommendations. On the other hand, there are almost exclusively suppliers who provide a high-energy nutritional powder to which a synthetic vitamin and mineral blend is added that corresponds to current nutritional recommendations. They proudly advertise that this type of nutritional powder contains only the recommended nutrients and absolutely nothing more. Anything added beyond scientific recommendations is unnecessary and, even worse, unscientific. Anyone who believes that naturalness or organic certification makes a difference is committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Our position
We know that the equations “synthetic = unhealthy” and “GMO = bad” are not true. We understand that synthetic ingredients and genetically modified organisms are used in the food industry. Genetic engineering is often necessary and beneficial, as are synthetic ingredients. However, in our view, these are used in the Soylent variants available on the market to make the product cheaper, not to make it better. So we cannot be accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy when we see no need to use synthetic products, and we will continue to promote this position with a certain degree of pride.

Let me try to clarify our view by means of a historical thought experiment.
If synthetic nutrition powders had been developed in 1941 according to the nutritional recommendations current at the time, the result would have been a product that led to malnutrition because some essential vitamins would have been missing. Fortunately, the authors were not so naive as to believe that research into human nutrition was complete; instead, they already anticipated that further knowledge about vitamins and minerals would be gained, which would lead to the recommendations being revised. This was also noted in writing:

The committee is aware that the proposed values will need to be revised from time to time as more knowledge about nutrient requirements becomes available. http://Www.Nap.Edu/Read/13286/Chapter/1

However, these powders were developed today, and they contain the vitamin mix from a more recent RDI. Yet even in this RDI, the authors note:

The DRIs will continue to evolve as better information becomes available. When interpreting the results of assessments of individuals or groups, it is appropriate to consider possible limitations in the information base used to establish the relevant DRIs. Http://Www.Nap.Edu/Read/9956/Chapter/5#27

So, is it really unreasonable to suppose that this development will continue over the next few years and that new essential vitamins will be discovered that are not contained in today's synthetic products, unless they happen to be present in oats or rice protein? The synthetic powders would certainly be improved then, but the period from today until the discovery of the new essential nutrients would be spent consuming a 100% synthetic diet without those essential nutrients. So anyone who wants to cover all essential nutrients with greater certainty would surely be much better advised to consume a mix of natural ingredients than a powder to which only the vitamins we know about today have been added. Our approach is therefore neither pseudoscientific nor based on a naturalistic fallacy; rather, it follows the recommendations of the authors of the RDIs, who themselves acknowledge that further developments will take place. The accusations we sometimes have to listen to suggest that there is some kind of obligation to use synthetic ingredients. We certainly do not see it that way.