We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

When did 'chemical' become a bad word?

123457»

Replies

  • Posts: 2,019 Member

    Let's say my great great grandfather planted an apple tree when he was a boy. A crow carries the apple off and it's seed starts a new tree. Then the same thing happens for several growing seasons. All those new trees are naturally planted. Is their fruit natural, or is it unnatural because of the original tree planted by a boy many years ago?

    It's unnatural, unless you're able to explain why a cow planting a tree is more 'natural' than your great great grandfather doing so, or you're able to clearly and objectively delineate the point at which the human 'interference' that apparently makes the apple unnatural (by some definitions within this thread) ceases to matter.
  • Posts: 2,272 Member
    peter56765 wrote: »

    The huckleberry has been largely supplanted by the tastier, seedless and easier to grow blueberry. If there was a big enough market for huckleberries, the big agriculture businesses would have focused their resources on developing them, but there isn't. Most other native North American foods have been supplanted by crops from other parts of the world that have higher yields, taste better, are more drought resistant, easier to work with, etc. Eurasian crops, in particular, benefit from man having cultivated them from thousands of years longer than crops from other parts of the world. Over such a long time, we've altered these crops the most in order to suit our needs best. Can we honestly still say that wheat and rice and barley are still "natural" foods?

    Corn and potatoes are the big exceptions of crops from the New World that are superior to anything similar from Eurasia, however both are relatively recent imports from South America. At one time, Native North Americans grew crops like goosefoot, sumpweed, knotweed and maygrass. You've probably never heard of them because the natives abandoned them very quickly once they were able to acquire Eurasian crops. Are they natural foods while wheat is not? Because of aggressive breeding, corn and potatoes bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors? Are they natural? Did they used to be?

    These questions can't be answered because they have no meaning. Man is a part of nature. We change the world and the world changes us. So does every other living thing.

    Excellent post.
  • Posts: 259 Member
    Sytye wrote: »

    So, evolution isn't a theory? Can you please explain to me what a scientific theory is because i want to know now. I feel dumb :/

    In most scientific circles, evolution is now generally considered to be a fact. That's what happens when something is a theory that cannot be unproven for so long that everyone gives up on disputing it. A theory is what evolution was for a very long time -- an idea with lots of evidence supporting it, but that people are still testing to try to either disprove or say that they cannot disprove it.
  • Posts: 15,357 Member
    wamydia wrote: »

    In most scientific circles, evolution is now generally considered to be a fact. That's what happens when something is a theory that cannot be unproven for so long that everyone gives up on disputing it. A theory is what evolution was for a very long time -- an idea with lots of evidence supporting it, but that people are still testing to try to either disprove or say that they cannot disprove it.

    The national academy of science says that the theory of evolution is still being refined:
    http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
  • Posts: 1,276 Member
    Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

    It is a fact because mutations happen. New species have been observed appearing from some populations of e.g lizards. Basically, change happens.

    It is a theory because it is also an overarching explanation for the diversity of life we see extant and extinct, in particular the descent with modification.

    In scientific terms a theory is not simply a wild *kitten* guess (as it is often used in common parlance). It is an explanation for a collection of facts that brings them together, in a testable way, to make a cohesive "story". It considers all the facts so far in evidence and all those facts must be at least consistent with the theory and certainly not counter it. It makes predictions of what else we might find (i.e modifications are only going to be within the scope of what is biologically feasible). Finally, and extremely importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. If some new fact came to light that does not fit with the existing theory (e.g. a fully formed rabbit fossil found in Precambrian strata) then the theory gets thrown out; but any new replacement theory has to take into account all the old data PLUS the new.

    Evolution is one of the most tested theories we currently have in science. No data found to date disprove it. There is plenty of discussion/argument about exactly how it happens, what aspects are most important, exactly where certain species fit etc. But there is no real scientific discussion about whether evolution actually happens or not. It is the only story we have that actually fits the facts.
  • Posts: 12,950 Member
    BrettPGH_ wrote: »
    I wish I could make everyone who complains about GMOs, toxins, and "our natural food supply being tainted by man" eat apples like that. So they'd actually learn something.
    I gather their juice, ferment it, and get my friends messed up.
  • Posts: 12,950 Member

    I happen to love crab apples. Have since I was a kid. But thanks for another off topic response that in no way answered my question.

    I'm surprised, you're arguing again.
  • Posts: 12,950 Member
    auddii wrote: »

    The national academy of science says that the theory of evolution is still being refined:
    http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
    ...
    *sigh*
    ...

    Due to the nature of science.

    This is what irks me, people just seem incapable of understanding that theory has a technical definition to it. I like on the red end of a purple state... these idiots actually believe theory means WAG. I just can't imagine the level of dumb needed for that. (They also claim climate change is fake, because it's cold right now, and it's always cold in november.

    That brand of stupid hurts. Hurts all of us.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member

    It's unnatural, unless you're able to explain why a cow planting a tree is more 'natural' than your great great grandfather doing so, or you're able to clearly and objectively delineate the point at which the human 'interference' that apparently makes the apple unnatural (by some definitions within this thread) ceases to matter.

    A cow might be a bad example, since it's pretty much a man-made creature. But let's say the apple naturally fell from the tree or, as in my example, a crow carried it off and dropped the seed. That is more natural than man planting it because of the the definition of the word "natural".

    I wasn't discussing what "mattered", because, mattered to whom? I was just discussing what is natural, based on a previous post that said no food was natural.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    dbmata wrote: »

    I'm surprised, you're arguing again.

    Actually, I'm arguing, or as I like to call it, discussing, still. :p

    But both an argument and discussion takes at least 2 people, so ... just sayin'.
  • Posts: 253 Member
    Chemicals are not the issues. Atoms and molecules are everywhere and make up everything. My issues is when someone creates a chemical monstrosity of processed leftovers from other industrial products and tries to pass it off as food. But wait! It has fruit juice coloring in it, so they can still say "contains fruit". Screw congress and the food companies they are in bed with. I take my issues with the people, not the chemicals.
  • Posts: 2,925 Member
    I blame the Food Babe
  • Posts: 1,302 Member
    Chemical became a bad word around the same time that My Chemical Romance started to get popular. That is fact.

    QFT

  • Posts: 1,302 Member
    renku wrote: »
    Do you need a carcinogenic orange dye in pumpkin spice that is going to be pumped into an overpowering dark cup of coffee, even at a tiny (non-harmful) amount it's still not needed.

    Why not?

    No, seriously... why not?
  • Posts: 66 Member
    It became a horrible, bad word when I started studying BSc Chemistry. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

    This degree will be the death of me.
  • Posts: 2,855 Member
    ...
    *sigh*
    ...

    Due to the nature of science.

    This is what irks me, people just seem incapable of understanding that theory has a technical definition to it. I like on the red end of a purple state... these idiots actually believe theory means WAG. I just can't imagine the level of dumb needed for that. (They also claim climate change is fake, because it's cold right now, and it's always cold in november.

    That brand of stupid hurts. Hurts all of us.

    Wow. . You should be on a debate team!
  • Posts: 1,166 Member
    Chemical became a bad word when the hippies of the 60s decided to find a new thing to complain about and got into the "health" business.
  • Posts: 2,019 Member

    A cow might be a bad example, since it's pretty much a man-made creature. But let's say the apple naturally fell from the tree or, as in my example, a crow carried it off and dropped the seed. That is more natural than man planting it because of the the definition of the word "natural".

    I wasn't discussing what "mattered", because, mattered to whom? I was just discussing what is natural, based on a previous post that said no food was natural.

    "Matters" in the sense of objectively delineating the point where a food becomes "unnatural." Why is the cow more natural than the human? Where are humans from that makes them "unnatural?"
  • Posts: 1,492 Member
    I'm gathering that the distinction being made between natural and unnatural is about whether intention and intelligence were involved. Man has both, while everything else (apparently) has neither.
    So a crow stupidly picking up a seed and stupidly dropping it somewhere and a tree unintentionally grows from the stupid and unintentional ground is "natural."
    But gramps planting a seed is unnatural, because gramps possesses intention and intelligence. Gramps knows that b follows from a, so gramps does a to achieve b.
    As if gramps thinks he's God or something.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited November 2014

    "Matters" in the sense of objectively delineating the point where a food becomes "unnatural." Why is the cow more natural than the human? Where are humans from that makes them "unnatural?"

    Look natural up in a dictionary. The primary definition will be something along the lines of "existing in nature and not made or caused by man". Nature is the world existing indepentently of humans.

    So, if you apply that definition very strictly and narrowly, man has influenced the world so nothing is natural. But, if you apply it more broadly, how far from man's influence does it need to be to consider it "natural". I wasn't really looking for a definitive answer, since I doubt anyone has one.
  • Posts: 8,059 Member
    mykaylis wrote: »

    no, that is combining two natural foods.

    chemicals are things like splenda, which does not occur in nature, and gives me seizures.
    And peanuts can flat out kill people. That's really the entire problem I have with the whole "natural vs not natural" "debate." Plenty of food items specifically created by humans are perfectly safe, and plenty naturally occurring food items can kill someone with one bite, or even just the scent. It makes the entire debate meaningless, quite frankly.
  • Posts: 219 Member
    The Food Babe and her idiot followers gave me brain holes to pour my tasty chemicals into.
  • Posts: 9,532 Member
    So, if you apply that definition very strictly and narrowly, man has influenced the world so nothing is natural. But, if you apply it more broadly, how far from man's influence does it need to be to consider it "natural". I wasn't really looking for a definitive answer, since I doubt anyone has one.

    The big difference between (for example) hybridizing plants and GMOing plants is that the latter takes place on an extremely rapid time frame and can also spread from a point of origin at an extremely rate. So for me it's not really about whether GMO foods will kill you (highly unlikely, they're quite safe to eat), it's about how uncontrollably things can go wrong if we hit an unknown unknown.

    And in our mucking about with genetics (which I've been involved in since the mid-90s), it is inevitable that we will eventually hit an unknown unknown.

    That's how I tend to view questions of natural vs unnatural.
This discussion has been closed.