Chemicals in your foods!

Acg67

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/may/19/manmade-natural-tasty-toxic-chemicals

Chemicals are bad, right? Otherwise why would so many purveyors of all things healthy proudly proclaim their products to be "chemical-free" and why would phrases such as "it's chock full of chemicals" be so commonly used to imply something is unnatural and therefore inherently dangerous?

On one level these phrases are meaningless – after all, chemicals are everywhere, in everything. From the air that we breathe to the pills we pop, it's all chemicals. Conversely, many would argue (the Advertising Standards Agency included) that we all know perfectly well what "chemical-free" means and those who rail against the absurdity of the phrase are just being pedantic. Even the Oxford Dictionary defines a chemical as "a distinct compound or substance, especially one which has been artificially prepared or purified."

So "chemical-free" products are adhering to a recognised usage.

But pedantry and definition aren’t really the point. The point is that every time anti-chemical slogans are used people are being misinformed. The implication is always that the terms "chemical" and "poison" are interchangeable. This is a perception that permeates our subconscious to the extent that chemists themselves have been guilty of exactly the same lazy language.

As a result of this common usage of "chemicals" the whole subject has been tainted with unpleasant connotations. And while physics and biology have their celebrity scientists extolling the wonders of bosons, bugs and big bangs, chemists are left floundering in their wake or are left completely unrepresented in the mainstream media (where's the Guardian's chemistry blog?).

This is all despite the modern world having been built on the innovations of chemists. For example, most of the world's population is sustained by the innovations of one of them. Fritz Haber invented a means to turn the nitrogen in the air into useful agricultural fertiliser (40% of the nitrogen in you comes from Haber's reaction). Meanwhile the chemists who artificially prepared or purified antibiotics are responsible for a treatment that saves more lives than any other medical intervention.

All these arguments are trotted out by chemistry bloggers on a regular basis, but these writers are only preaching to the converted. The good news is that on Monday the campaign group Sense about Science joined the discussion with the publication of a guide entitled Making Sense of Chemical Stories. Sense about Science is a respected charitable organisation that "equips people to make sense of scientific and medical claims in public discussion". In short, it facilitates discussions between concerned/interested groups and relevant experts.

The aim of its guide is to bridge the disconnect between the lifestyle view (and popular definition) of chemicals and the realities of how chemistry is used to sustain the modern world. The guide does this by tackling common misconceptions about chemistry.

A key misconception is that natural chemicals are somehow safer than manmade ones. The wrongheadedness of this is nicely illustrated by a pair of infographics (above) created by Compound Interest that don’t shy away from admitting synthetic chemicals are often toxic, but also make it clear that whether a chemical is naturally occurring or manmade tells us precisely nothing about its toxicity.

Not only that, but where harmful chemicals do occur (be that in potatoes or lethal injections) the dose is the really important thing to consider.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

wheird

Thank you for posting this. It is important that people consider context before becoming terrified of something they don't understand.

redversustheblue

This is why the site needs a like button. I like this so hard.

KseRz

Has anyone here used the eye drops Clear Eyes (max red relief)??



Well every time you do, you are putting Boric Acid into your precious little optical balls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid

Confuzzled4ever

to each their own.

kgeyser

This is why I don't freak out one way or the other about food labels. Just because something has a scary sounding name doesn't mean that it's going to hurt me or that it is present in levels high enough to hurt me. Conversely, just because a label claims to have tons of nutrients or super foods doesn't mean that they will be present in levels that will actually do me any good.

BraveNewdGirl

Well, thank goodness I don't eat apple seeds, pears, potatoes or zucchinis!

Seriously, though, awesome post is awesome. Cheers, OP!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tennisdude2004

Not really a ground breaking or controversial article - pretty much what most of use believe.

We consume toxic chemicals daily and daily our liver filters them!

ahamm002

Then there's the fact that mammal evolved for hundreds of millions of years with foods like fruit. So we know that our bodies are more than capable of metabolizing the small amounts of "poisonous chemicals" in them.

Are there any negative long term effects of man-made chemicals in our food right now? The answer is we don't know. There might not be any call for "chemophobia." But there are plenty of chemicals that have already been banned from foods b/c it turns out they are in fact bad for us, and there's no way to know that new artificially created chemicals are okay until we have long term studies on them.

Confuzzled4ever

to each their own.

Because this is true for some and not others?

:flowerforyou:

Are there any negative long term effects of man-made chemicals in our food right now? The answer is we don't know. There might not be any call for "chemophobia." But there are plenty of chemicals that have already been banned from foods b/c it turns out they are in fact bad for us, and there's no way to know that new artificially created chemicals are okay until we have long term studies on them.

This
:drinker:

snikkins

So good to see that there are knowledgeable and dedicated members here willing to share facts with people, as opposed to the constant fear mongering from others.

Facts, supported by science.

:drinker:

weightliftingdiva

Pass the cheetos please.

Derpes

to each their own.

Looks like someone did not watch enough Beakman's World!

PikaKnight

Tagging and bookmarking.

Awesome post OP :bigsmile:

LolBroScience

*cheers*

brower47

Serah87

:drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:

Unknown

This content has been removed.

KseRz

Then there's the fact that mammal evolved for hundreds of millions of years with foods like fruit. So we know that our bodies are more than capable of metabolizing the small amounts of "poisonous chemicals" in them.

Are there any negative long term effects of man-made chemicals in our food right now? The answer is we don't know. There might not be any call for "chemophobia." But there are plenty of chemicals that have already been banned from foods b/c it turns out they are in fact bad for us, and there's no way to know that new artificially created chemicals are okay until we have long term studies on them.

IN for riding dinosaurs!

CallMeCupcakeDammit

to each their own.

Because this is true for some and not others?

Do you even MFP?
















Yeah, I know.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Aross83

bump!

Confuzzled4ever

to each their own.

Looks like someone did not watch enough Beakman's World!

ha.. I watched Bill Nye. He rocked! Sorry you feel the need to attempt an insult. i'd say you failed. but eh.. as I said.. To each their own. :flowerforyou: :laugh:

ahamm002

Has anyone here used the eye drops Clear Eyes (max red relief)??



Well every time you do, you are putting Boric Acid into your precious little optical balls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid

Why would anyone care about a small dilute dose of a weak naturally occurring acid touching their eyes? I'd be more worried about the naphazoline.

FoxyLifter

:drinker:

Derpes

to each their own.

Looks like someone did not watch enough Beakman's World!

ha.. I watched Bill Nye. He rocked! Sorry you feel the need to attempt an insult. i'd say you failed. but eh.. as I said.. To each their own. :flowerforyou: :laugh:

An insult?

Benign humor, maybe, but an insult?