> but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem That

> but in this case the author appears to be using it in the sense of "shareholders aren't getting a cut" so in this particular article it isn't a problem That would be exactly the same. "Healthcare companies" always get a cut, no matter how "natural" the substance is, for all definitions of natural that you can think of, because healthcare companies get a cut of everything that is even minimally active, FDA or not. In fact, there are big pharma companies that literally profit from selling water (Boiron, but plenty of others). Even if you define "natural" exactly as "something pharma companies don't currently profit from" (a very misleading definition), that definition is going to be uselessly ephemeral as pharma is sure to profit from it as soon as it becomes minimally popular. Therefore, it is again a useless, diffuse definition that is often used simply to indicate whatever the author fancies today.