When did 'chemical' become a bad word?
Options
Replies
-
moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
Artisinally crafted and gluten free.
I'd bet you I'll make a lot of money that way too.
Better share those millions with those who inspired the idea!
You got it.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »mommyofjan wrote: »
I think it's the man-made chemicals that get people in an uproar
Funny how this point was glossed over.
Baking soda is man-made. So is table salt. And sugar. Botulinum is naturally occurring and one teaspoon of it is enough to kill one-quarter of world's population. To kill the bacteria that produces it, we often add highly concentrated man-made sugar and/or man-made acids to our foods. Fancy that.0 -
moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.0 -
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.
So... you've never heard of a tooth brush?0 -
You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
It's quite possible. You can grow your own food, get your beef, chicken, pork etc. from local farms that don't use hormones (which I find it rather funny that stores pay MORE for non-hormone injected meat), same goes for eggs and milk. You could buy grain, get a grain grinder and make your own flour to make bread and pastas with. Grow your own herbs, make your own sauces, can and freeze the vegetables that you harvest. . . .0 -
EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
Well, isn't it just enough that you disagree with what we try to eat rather than say it's the "best/worst".
When I say best it's about the deliberately obtuse ones that make me laugh, like Food Babe.
When I say worst it's about the people who are making a real effort at what they perceive to be eating healthier, but don't understand or have gotten bad information about what healthier is.
Chemical does not mean bad. Natural does not mean good. And the GMO subject is so complex it's impossible to understand all the ramifications (both positive and negative) without some serious research or a post-secondary degree.0 -
No, I'm saying the alarmists who demonize foods, and are scared of "chemicals" and say "I don't eat anything I can't pronounce" seem to have very little scientific education.EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
What level of school are you referring to? Are you implying that those who are on one side of the camp have a formal education in science while those on the other side do not?
0 -
Let's take water. Natural water would come straight from the creek and will have trace elements that human intervention would remove, like minerals, parasites, and bacteria. Some are innocuous, others deadly. Minerals in some quantity are beneficial. Human intervention might chemically treat the water with chlorine (bleach) or something similar, and regulated testing would make sure the treated water is safe to drink. There we have tap water.
Then there's distilled water. Distilled gets a bad name, but the process about guarantees the purest product you can hope for, 99.9999% or somesuch. My daughter pounces on the last 0.00001%; surely THAT might be dangerous?
I can promise you of the three, the natural water is the most dangerous.0 -
moremuffins wrote: »EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
Well, isn't it just enough that you disagree with what we try to eat rather than say it's the "best/worst".
When I say best it's about the deliberately obtuse ones that make me laugh, like Food Babe.
When I say worst it's about the people who are making a real effort at what they perceive to be eating healthier, but don't understand or have gotten bad information about what healthier is.
Chemical does not mean bad. Natural does not mean good. And the GMO subject is so complex it's impossible to understand all the ramifications (both positive and negative) without some serious research or a post-secondary degree.
And your last sentence is why many think GMO is bad or should be labelled. Same for additives. They don't want to have to go get a degree to feel the food they buy is safe.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
It's quite possible. You can grow your own food, get your beef, chicken, pork etc. from local farms that don't use hormones (which I find it rather funny that stores pay MORE for non-hormone injected meat), same goes for eggs and milk. You could buy grain, get a grain grinder and make your own flour to make bread and pastas with. Grow your own herbs, make your own sauces, can and freeze the vegetables that you harvest. . . .
If I had the time and energy and time I would love that diet, because I would know exactly how everything I ate was handled. However, that being said, it would still have chemicals because chemicals are not just herbicides and additives, but also the lactose in the milk, they make up the proteins in the meat and to make bread you have to have a chemical reaction. Chemical is really a benign word that people have twisted and is now misused.
Also what about the hormones produced by the animal itself?0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
It's quite possible. You can grow your own food, get your beef, chicken, pork etc. from local farms that don't use hormones (which I find it rather funny that stores pay MORE for non-hormone injected meat), same goes for eggs and milk. You could buy grain, get a grain grinder and make your own flour to make bread and pastas with. Grow your own herbs, make your own sauces, can and freeze the vegetables that you harvest. . . .
I should have stayed offline. OP specifically said "chemical-free." One simply cannot have a chemical-free diet. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Period. Because EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. Everything.0 -
sheldonz42 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
It's quite possible. You can grow your own food, get your beef, chicken, pork etc. from local farms that don't use hormones (which I find it rather funny that stores pay MORE for non-hormone injected meat), same goes for eggs and milk. You could buy grain, get a grain grinder and make your own flour to make bread and pastas with. Grow your own herbs, make your own sauces, can and freeze the vegetables that you harvest. . . .
I should have stayed offline. OP specifically said "chemical-free." One simply cannot have a chemical-free diet. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Period. Because EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. Everything.
And I am arguing the fact that those who state they don't want chemicals in their food are obviously NOT talking about those found naturally in the food.
How flipping hard is that to grasp!?
0 -
"Chemical" became a bad word when education started getting dumbed down.
The movement "don't eat what you can't pronounce" is run by people who did poorly in school.
Besides, just because I can pronounce something doesn't mean I'd eat it!
Case in point: paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
It's quite possible. You can grow your own food, get your beef, chicken, pork etc. from local farms that don't use hormones (which I find it rather funny that stores pay MORE for non-hormone injected meat), same goes for eggs and milk. You could buy grain, get a grain grinder and make your own flour to make bread and pastas with. Grow your own herbs, make your own sauces, can and freeze the vegetables that you harvest. . . .
I should have stayed offline. OP specifically said "chemical-free." One simply cannot have a chemical-free diet. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Period. Because EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. Everything.
And I am arguing the fact that those who state they don't want chemicals in their food are obviously NOT talking about those found naturally in the food.
How flipping hard is that to grasp!?
It isn't hard to grasp, it just sounds so incredibly stupid to me for someone to say they are striving for a chemical-free diet.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
It's quite possible. You can grow your own food, get your beef, chicken, pork etc. from local farms that don't use hormones (which I find it rather funny that stores pay MORE for non-hormone injected meat), same goes for eggs and milk. You could buy grain, get a grain grinder and make your own flour to make bread and pastas with. Grow your own herbs, make your own sauces, can and freeze the vegetables that you harvest. . . .
I should have stayed offline. OP specifically said "chemical-free." One simply cannot have a chemical-free diet. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Period. Because EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. Everything.
And I am arguing the fact that those who state they don't want chemicals in their food are obviously NOT talking about those found naturally in the food.
How flipping hard is that to grasp!?
Because the people who say that actually don't articulate that is what they are doing. They say, "I won't eat anything I can't pronounce" or "I refuse to eat anything with chemicals in it" or my personal favorite, "I only eat clean". Then when people point out that the list of compounds in an apple includes many words difficult for a layperson to pronounce, or ask them if they are including dihydrogen monoxide and sodium bicarbonate, or ask them to qualify what they mean by "clean" they get defensive and start accusing the ones asking for clarification of being mean.
You can't say, "everyone knows what I mean" when day in and day out there are threads here with people who have different definitions of what is acceptable.
Again I point out the thread where baking soda was deemed to be toxic. People said, "dosage is important" and the person said they refused to ingest ANY quantities of baking soda because it is used to remove paint. So no, it't not that hard to grasp that people might be using the most literal definition possible...
0 -
EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
Well, isn't it just enough that you disagree with what we try to eat rather than say it's the "best/worst".
When I say best it's about the deliberately obtuse ones that make me laugh, like Food Babe.
When I say worst it's about the people who are making a real effort at what they perceive to be eating healthier, but don't understand or have gotten bad information about what healthier is.
Chemical does not mean bad. Natural does not mean good. And the GMO subject is so complex it's impossible to understand all the ramifications (both positive and negative) without some serious research or a post-secondary degree.
I know that's what you meant, but I was just making an example of your post. It's not the only one. It's clear there are disagreements but how we say things prevent threads from escalating into gif-fests (although some of them are funny) and name calling and disrespect.
It's clear from my previous posts that I massively disagree from the majority here, but I try damn hard to stay away from putting someone else down, or implying that they aren't educated (you didn't do that someone else did).
You actually don't have to be that educated. It just depends on what sources you're getting your information from. And if you're double checking that they're credible. I have absolutely no formal science training and didn't even do well in it in high school. But I know that before you believe something online or in a documentary you should check it with a reputable source before buying into it.
The health and safety of our food is determined by scientists. Not bloggers. Trust good sources.
Do you mean to say that Infowars and Freelee might not be the best sources for my knowledge?0 -
No, I'm saying the alarmists who demonize foods, and are scared of "chemicals" and say "I don't eat anything I can't pronounce" seem to have very little scientific education.EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
What level of school are you referring to? Are you implying that those who are on one side of the camp have a formal education in science while those on the other side do not?
But, food babe has science education. Computer science0 -
EatsNotTreats wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »EatsNotTreats wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »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.
I'm not sure anyone is saying it's a bad word except for the OP. So what if someone prefers to not eat food that has FD&C Yellow #5 or Red Dye #5 in it (seriously, when did YOU ever pick fruit from one of those trees)? No one is debating the fact that chemicals are in everything around us in the world they are merely saying that there ARE chemicals that can be potentially harmful to you. If you think all chemicals are fine and dandy then by all means. Go drink a bottle of Clorox or Lysol.
My point is that the word "chemical" in relation to what we consume has this stigma that it's toxic and bad for you, which just isn't true. It's misleading and inaccurate and screams "Hey I'm preaching about something that I know nothing about!"
Then what would you call something that is chemically produced in a lab?
A chemical. I think you are missing my point. Basically everything, when you get down to the chemical composition level, is a chemical. So why do people use the word with such a negative connotation?
Because enough science isn't taught in school any more. People are more scientifically illiterate. It shows big time on MFP.
You've got that right. Some posts I read and I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The best/worst are the ones that want an all-natural, chemical-free, non-GMO diet.
Well, isn't it just enough that you disagree with what we try to eat rather than say it's the "best/worst".
When I say best it's about the deliberately obtuse ones that make me laugh, like Food Babe.
When I say worst it's about the people who are making a real effort at what they perceive to be eating healthier, but don't understand or have gotten bad information about what healthier is.
Chemical does not mean bad. Natural does not mean good. And the GMO subject is so complex it's impossible to understand all the ramifications (both positive and negative) without some serious research or a post-secondary degree.
And your last sentence is why many think GMO is bad or should be labelled. Same for additives. They don't want to have to go get a degree to feel the food they buy is safe.
Just clarifying, You are saying that if you have a degree you will know that GMOs are safe????
Um, no. Seriously?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 933 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions