Paper short abstract:

This paper analyses the social construction of toxicity and safety in the context of a private, family-lineage based ayurvedic manufacturing unit in North India manufacturing herbo-metallic ash medicines (bhasmas) involving the distillation and trituration of mercury.

Paper long abstract:

At first thought, the evaluation of a substance as toxic or non-toxic seems to be based on an unquestionable and universal understanding of toxicity. This paper argues that perceptions of toxicity and related ideas of safety remain culturally constructed despite WHO definitions and hegemonic scientific proclamations concerning globally acceptable limits for the consumption of and exposure to poisonous substances.

Presenting an ethnographic example from a private, family-lineage based ayurvedic manufacturing unit for multi-compound herbo-metallic ashes (bhasmas) in northern India, which included the direct observation of the distillation of mercury from artificial cinnabar and the trituration of mercury and sulphur with gold and herbal juices, this paper analyses how the supervising Vaidya (ayurvedic doctor) perceives and deals with the known toxicity of mercury during the manufacturing process.

The difference in paradigms of toxicity becomes obvious as the ethnographer stays upwind to avoid exposure to the fumes and the Vaidya proceeds without apparent caution. Conversations on toxicity follow and the Vaidya explains that he 'knows' that mercury is toxic but has not 'seen' any toxic effects, neither in his family, teachers, assistants, nor himself. While he is sure that the final bhasma is non-toxic—although its chemical composition is 'unknown'—he concentrates on the efficaciousness of the bhasma, which he sees is effective in treating severe 'known' diseases in his patients. 'Knowing,' 'not-knowing,' and 'seeing' as culturally constructed experiences and sources of knowledge are analysed in the context of how safety is constructed, articulated, and negotiated throughout his practice.