Public opinion increasingly associates nuclear energy with negative environmental outcomes, but can this perception influence how people judge food? This study examines whether the perceived naturalness of energy sources used to manufacture kitchen appliances affects the perceived healthiness of foods prepared with those appliances. Food prepared with appliances manufactured using nuclear energy was consistently perceived as less healthy than food prepared with appliances manufactured without any specified energy source (Studies 1–3; $N_{\text {total}}$ = 1,939), with this negative nuclear effect also emerging when compared against a wind energy condition in the most well-powered, preregistered experiment (Study 3). Further, the effect of nuclear energy on healthiness perceptions was indirect through perceived risk (Study 3), implying that nuclear energy evoked greater perceived risk, which ultimately reduced perceived healthiness. This work extends contagion theory by showing that perceptions of unnaturalness can spread through abstract and distant links—such as energy sources used in manufacturing—to shape judgments in unrelated domains. The persistence of negative contagion effects associated with nuclear energy, but the more modest positive effects from wind energy, aligns with the principle of negativity dominance in contagion research. These results suggest that consumer resistance to nuclear energy may stem, in part, from naturalness perceptions.

American and European adults prefer natural products and often pay premiums to purchase natural products. They may do this because they believe natural products are better, either functionally or inherently. We present a measure that assesses belief in the ‘benevolence of nature’ across a range of products and a range of situations, including safety, sensory appeal, and effectiveness. American adults show a substantial belief in the benevolence of nature. This belief is sometimes erroneous, with participants attributing higher quality to some natural products that are in fact inferior to their artificial counterparts. In support of the belief that natural products are inherently better, many participants express a preference for a natural as opposed to an artificial product when both are stipulated to be chemically identical or to have identical effects. An original set of 24 items to measure belief in the benevolence of nature is refined into a more useful 10-item scale, and correlations with related scales are assessed. Belief in the benevolence of nature is not lower in participants who have experienced at least one natural disaster.