When did 'chemical' become a bad word?
Replies
-
Mr_Bad_Example wrote: »Chemical became a bad word around the same time that My Chemical Romance started to get popular. That is fact.
Haha! It's true, I read that on the internet.0 -
Uneducated people believe stupid things. It will always be this way.bcomingfitmom wrote: »All the so called food documentaries that create fear amongst people. They show half truths twist researches and create panic.
Truth. If you watched Forks Over Knives and thought there was any accuracy at all in that poor excuse for a "documentary" you are part of the problem. All food documentaries -- at least, all the ones on Netflix -- are uniformly terrible.
0 -
mommyofjan wrote: »
I think it's the man-made chemicals that get people in an uproar
Funny how this point was glossed over.
0 -
sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.
You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)
No, not really. I wouldn't consider personal preservation of food as f'n with the food supply. I was referring more to mass production.
So, more like adding chlorine to mass water supplies to make city drinking water safe.
Oh, you are just trying to be argumentative. I get it. I never said all chemical additions were bad. I just answered the OP's question. Also, not sure water supply and food supply are the same things.
But basically yeah, it starts with added chlorine, then another chemical, then another, some of which are quite controversial.0 -
If you have ever rejected a piece of product in the grocery store because it looks slightly scabby, bug-eaten, overripe, or misshapen, then you're partially responsible for mass agriculture's reliance on pesticides and preservatives. Our mass consumer behavior has caused this type of corporate behavior.
That said, added chemicals aren't all bad. Fire retardants in my kids pajamas? Only bad if I actually want them to burn to death in the unlikely but not impossible event of a house fire. Preservatives in my bread? Far less toxic than the mold and bacteria we'd be eating every day otherwise. Artificial sweeteners? Not exactly health food, but certainly helping me out on my quest to be thinner.
It's all cost/benefit. Educate yourself, learn the tradeoffs, make informed decisions.0 -
I blame Liberals.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Artificial sweeteners are bad, not because they cause cancer or anything insane like that, but because their far more acidic and worst for your teeth than sugar.
Seriously, just use real sugar but in sensible amounts and you're not gonna get fat.0 -
sammmmykins wrote: »Artificial sweeteners are bad, not because they cause cancer or anything insane like that, but because their far more acidic and worst for your teeth than sugar.
Seriously, just use real sugar but in sensible amounts and you're not gonna get fat.
Artificial sweeteners are good, because they don't make you fat despite how much you use.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.
You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)
No, not really. I wouldn't consider personal preservation of food as f'n with the food supply. I was referring more to mass production.
So, more like adding chlorine to mass water supplies to make city drinking water safe.
Oh, you are just trying to be argumentative. I get it. I never said all chemical additions were bad. I just answered the OP's question. Also, not sure water supply and food supply are the same things.
But basically yeah, it starts with added chlorine, then another chemical, then another, some of which are quite controversial.
My point is the same as OP's - "chemical" is not a bad word. At least it shouldn't be. And I will add that just because something is man-made doesn't make it bad.0 -
I am ashamed to say my daughter is in the clean foods camp, and it is all my fault. First of all, I worked for the Pesticide Chemicals branch of government and regaled my children with spec sheet facts and overdose horror stories. Then my step-mom died from breast cancer, who was otherwise healthy. My dad blamed too many years on hormone therapy. I will request removal of my beasties if I ever get diagnosed. And my daughter blames "chemicals", and figures since the cancer came roaring back on the second round, that the chemo was to blame.0
-
sammmmykins wrote: »Artificial sweeteners are bad, not because they cause cancer or anything insane like that, but because their far more acidic and worst for your teeth than sugar.
Seriously, just use real sugar but in sensible amounts and you're not gonna get fat.
Artificial sweeteners are good, because they don't make you fat despite how much you use.
yea, might just ruin your teeth though. Better to just eat stuff with sugar in it but act like a responsible adult and not over consume.
0 -
My big argument is, if we are all essentially big bags of chemicals, where do we draw the line at what is natural and healthy and what is not? The acid in our stomach is hazardous outside it's confines. Oxygen and water are volatile compounds, which make them so handy for our body's use (combustion).0
-
When I was in Rio back in February, their water supplies are well chlorinated. You can smell it when it comes from the tap. So it's obviously safe.sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.
You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)
No, not really. I wouldn't consider personal preservation of food as f'n with the food supply. I was referring more to mass production.
So, more like adding chlorine to mass water supplies to make city drinking water safe.
Everyone (who can) drinks bottled water though. lol.
0 -
I dunno - there's a thread still going in which someone was convinced that sodium bicarbonate was toxic...
It is. You can overdose on it.
http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/baking-soda-overdose"Some athletes and coaches believe that drinking baking soda prior to competition helps a person perform for longer periods of time. This is extremely dangerous, and in addition to side effects, it actually makes the athletes unable to perform."
0 -
Actually, that is quite good. Fantastic really.BlackTimber wrote: »When Monsanto develops a plant that can absorb herbicides without being harmed. That is really really bad.
Plants that are chemically resistant to herbicides don't die and you get to eat more which means you live more.
Plants, like weeds (or harmful bacterias) which harm and kill crop die because the herbicides kill them. GMO crops are genetically resistant to herbicides so they don't die.
I will tell you what what is really bad. A lack of understanding on the public part from the irrational, anti-science, anti-health, pro-starvation anti-GMO crowd that willfully misinforms them.
Let me take a guess, but you probably hate vaccines to.0 -
sheldonz42 wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.
You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)
I love this point. People don't seem to realize how much chemicals and genetic engineering have helped us to live longer and to sustain our increasing population. Basically, we have it so good that we have to make things up to worry about.
And me without a "like" button...
Do what I do, just flag it. The flagging system doesn't mean anything anyway.-1 -
sammmmykins wrote: »sammmmykins wrote: »Artificial sweeteners are bad, not because they cause cancer or anything insane like that, but because their far more acidic and worst for your teeth than sugar.
Seriously, just use real sugar but in sensible amounts and you're not gonna get fat.
Artificial sweeteners are good, because they don't make you fat despite how much you use.
yea, might just ruin your teeth though. Better to just eat stuff with sugar in it but act like a responsible adult and not over consume.
Yeah, sugar will ruin your teeth just as quickly as artificial sweeteners. Your fatalistic attitude towards artificial sweetener is flawed by bad science.0 -
Sammykins, as a type 2 Diabetic in remission, I can say with confidence that sugar was far worse for me than Aspartame. The deleterious effects of sugar on a diabetic is well known.0
-
I dunno - there's a thread still going in which someone was convinced that sodium bicarbonate was toxic...
It is. You can overdose on it.
http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/baking-soda-overdose"Some athletes and coaches believe that drinking baking soda prior to competition helps a person perform for longer periods of time. This is extremely dangerous, and in addition to side effects, it actually makes the athletes unable to perform."
Enough of any chemical will kill you. Even drinking too much water is gonna kill you.0 -
Isn't xylitol actually good for your teeth or at least not bad for them?sammmmykins wrote: »sammmmykins wrote: »Artificial sweeteners are bad, not because they cause cancer or anything insane like that, but because their far more acidic and worst for your teeth than sugar.
Seriously, just use real sugar but in sensible amounts and you're not gonna get fat.
Artificial sweeteners are good, because they don't make you fat despite how much you use.
yea, might just ruin your teeth though. Better to just eat stuff with sugar in it but act like a responsible adult and not over consume.
0 -
For me, it's not so much that I'm afraid of the chemicals as I am a little grossed out. That's just my personal hangup. I remember a while back I bought a pot pie from Marie Callender because the commercial made it look so good and when I got it, the chicken had a weird not-so-chicken texture to it and when I read the ingredients, there were a lot more than one would expect to be in a pot pie. I just find that a little unsettling. What am I actually eating? Same goes for snack cakes, most fast foods, frozen tv dinners or appetizers. If the food has significantly more ingredients than I would put into it if I made it at home, I'm turned off.
And don't get me wrong, I still have junkfood, eat out at chain restaurants, etc., but in general, if I have the ability to know what I'm about to ingest, I'll take advantage of that.0 -
I hope it's not a bad word - otherwise I can't tell my son what type of engineering degree I have...
Oh - and while we are at it, can somebody please explain to the non-GMO crowd that you have never eaten a naturally occuring ear of corn in your lifetime, and likely have not eaten a natural variety of tomato in your life; because they have been cross-bred for so long.0 -
sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.
You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)
No, not really. I wouldn't consider personal preservation of food as f'n with the food supply. I was referring more to mass production.
So, more like adding chlorine to mass water supplies to make city drinking water safe.
Oh, you are just trying to be argumentative. I get it. I never said all chemical additions were bad. I just answered the OP's question. Also, not sure water supply and food supply are the same things.
But basically yeah, it starts with added chlorine, then another chemical, then another, some of which are quite controversial.
My point is the same as OP's - "chemical" is not a bad word. At least it shouldn't be. And I will add that just because something is man-made doesn't make it bad.
If the OP's point was that "chemical" is not a bad word, then the subject line seems kind of nonsensical.
0 -
I am ashamed to say my daughter is in the clean foods camp, and it is all my fault. First of all, I worked for the Pesticide Chemicals branch of government and regaled my children with spec sheet facts and overdose horror stories. Then my step-mom died from breast cancer, who was otherwise healthy. My dad blamed too many years on hormone therapy. I will request removal of my beasties if I ever get diagnosed. And my daughter blames "chemicals", and figures since the cancer came roaring back on the second round, that the chemo was to blame.
You might want to let your daughter know that ~50% of all cancers come back, and they come back more aggressively than before. The reason is that the first treatment kills off all of the cancer cells that were susceptible to that treatment, leaving behind any that were not. It's not unusual that there aren't many alternative treatments to try to knock out the more robust remaining cancer cells. So, if anything, the main problem is that the initial treatment isn't severe enough (because the treatment is usually toxic to healthy cells, too), rather than the other way around.
It's analogous to bacteria and antibiotics - if you don't take a strong enough and long enough round of antibiotics, you kill only the susceptible bacteria leaving behind the resistant ones.0 -
I hope it's not a bad word - otherwise I can't tell my son what type of engineering degree I have...
Oh - and while we are at it, can somebody please explain to the non-GMO crowd that you have never eaten a naturally occuring ear of corn in your lifetime, and likely have not eaten a natural variety of tomato in your life; because they have been cross-bred for so long.
Cross-bred is not the same as GMed.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »As far as diet goes, I think it became a bad word when man starting f'n with the food supply by adding chemicals that weren't naturally in the food.
You mean like when Native Americans would add salt to meat when drying it to better preserve it? (just an example)
No, not really. I wouldn't consider personal preservation of food as f'n with the food supply. I was referring more to mass production.
So, more like adding chlorine to mass water supplies to make city drinking water safe.
Oh, you are just trying to be argumentative. I get it. I never said all chemical additions were bad. I just answered the OP's question. Also, not sure water supply and food supply are the same things.
But basically yeah, it starts with added chlorine, then another chemical, then another, some of which are quite controversial.
My point is the same as OP's - "chemical" is not a bad word. At least it shouldn't be. And I will add that just because something is man-made doesn't make it bad.
If the OP's point was that "chemical" is not a bad word, then the subject line seems kind of nonsensical.
Did you even read the OP's post after the subject line? He is saying that water is a chemical. So, if you are one of the folks who subscribe to the idea that "chemical" is a bad word, you need to rethink your stance or get some education. The idea that "chemical" is a bad word IS nonsensical.-1 -
Obviously people are using different definitions of "chemical".
Claiming victory on pedantic grounds is the last resort of the conversationally defeated.
0 -
I hope it's not a bad word - otherwise I can't tell my son what type of engineering degree I have...
Oh - and while we are at it, can somebody please explain to the non-GMO crowd that you have never eaten a naturally occuring ear of corn in your lifetime, and likely have not eaten a natural variety of tomato in your life; because they have been cross-bred for so long.
To create hybrid vegetables, breeders select desirable characteristics from two or more unique parent plants (of the same genus, species or variety) and cross-pollinate them in a controlled environment to create a plant with the best features of the parent plants. Hybrid vegetables have benefits such as disease resistance, higher yields and better uniformity.
The description of a GMO is a variety that contains one or more genes from an entirely different species and is genetically altered using molecular genetics such as gene cloning and protein engineering. An example of a GMO is a field crop such as corn that has the pesticide Bt engineered into its genetic makeup to make it resistant to certain pests. Bt is a natural pesticide, but it would never find its way naturally into corn seed. GMO seed varieties will retain their original characteristics if saved and replanted, but because GMO seeds are patented by the companies producing them, intellectual property rights restrict using saved seed the next season.
So no, it is not entirely the same. Also Monsanto has made it illegal to reharvest the seeds from your GMO produce so the farmers are forced to keep purchasing their seeds every year.
I personally prefer heirloom vegetables whose seeds I can harvest and replant every year.
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions