When did 'chemical' become a bad word?
Replies
-
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
sheldonz42 wrote: »However, good luck convincing me that water is not a chemical by any definition...
-1 -
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?
Or Food Babe either... that chick makes my head want to explode with her lack of science understanding... I swear she didn't pass 5th grade science according to some of the quotes I have seen and it is my belief that anyone that follows her and believes her are just as big of morons as she is.... the previous poster that mentioned her has sent me into a rage now...0 -
LOL, Rage against badly formed concepts due to basic misunderstandings!
I just feel bad for people who can be easily led by that stuff.0 -
moremuffins wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »
Everybody on here is using the belief one.
Especially those who believe they are using the scientific one.
How about the Webster's dictionary definition?
1: of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry or the phenomena of chemistry <chemical reactions>
Exactly proves the point - your source provides numerous definitions, yet you only chose to share the ONE that is most closely aligned with your BELIEF.
Bingo bango bongo.
-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).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 science
Are you serious? Generally there's some requirement for logic and analysis in computer science that could then be applied to other sciences ...
Wonder what institution awarded her that degree.0 -
richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
Pffft logic...
0 -
richardheath wrote: »Labeling chemicals (as in added, or "man-made") as bad is part of the Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that natural = good and unnatural = bad.
Couple of problems with this.
(1) Natural things, such as arsenic or digitoxin can most definitely be "bad" (in the sense that they will kill you).
(2) Humans are part of nature. We are not some supernatural creature. Therefore, whatever we make is actually also part of nature.
(3) Man-made chemicals are indistinguishable from their naturally occurring forms. Fructose made in the lab is the same as Fructose from a ripe heirloom fruit. Penicillin from a lab is the same as secreted by the Penicillium mold.
(4) Inanimate objects do have a moral sense, and so cannot be "good" or "bad". We have to take them in context and dosage. That digitoxin can be used to treat cancer (in a very carefully controlled dosage, which is easier done with a highly purified "unnatural" form than by feeding the patient foxgloves).
I think if you look up the definition of the word "nature", you'll find not everything above is true.0 -
moremuffins wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »
Everybody on here is using the belief one.
Especially those who believe they are using the scientific one.
How about the Webster's dictionary definition?
1: of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry or the phenomena of chemistry <chemical reactions>
Exactly proves the point - your source provides numerous definitions, yet you only chose to share the ONE that is most closely aligned with your BELIEF.
Bingo bango bongo.
Actually I just grabbed the first one. My apologies. Here's the link I used, go find a definition you like better.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chemicalhttp://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...
I used to be that way... until my husband who has a chemistry background slapped sense into me... and it dawned on me that the uneducated will rail against water when given it's chemical compound name.0 -
moremuffins wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »
Everybody on here is using the belief one.
Especially those who believe they are using the scientific one.
How about the Webster's dictionary definition?
1: of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry or the phenomena of chemistry <chemical reactions>
Exactly proves the point - your source provides numerous definitions, yet you only chose to share the ONE that is most closely aligned with your BELIEF.
Bingo bango bongo.
Lots of enzymes catalyzing chemical reactions in your cells right now, converting one group of chemicals to another group of chemicals. Chemistry isn't just something that happens in test tubes.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...
I used to be that way... until my husband who has a chemistry background slapped sense into me... and it dawned on me that the uneducated will rail against water when given it's chemical compound name.
So much this.0 -
"anything that has chemicals in it"??if you really and truly think that there is no harm in chemicals (in food or otherwise) then go tell that to my friend who is now severely allergic to ANYTHING that has chemicals in it
That would be anything that exists.
I have the same reaction to people who say they eat "organic" food.I wish I could count the times I have read in things in the forums like "I eat chemical-free food" or "I try to avoid chemicals in my food." Sure, I know what they mean, but it just sounds so incredibly stupid.
All of us do. If it weren't organic it wouldn't be food.
(Then again, water isn't organic, but is it considered a food?)
For the win!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
(Alcohol requires a chemical reaction too, similar to bread.)0 -
richardheath wrote: »moremuffins wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »
Everybody on here is using the belief one.
Especially those who believe they are using the scientific one.
How about the Webster's dictionary definition?
1: of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry or the phenomena of chemistry <chemical reactions>
Exactly proves the point - your source provides numerous definitions, yet you only chose to share the ONE that is most closely aligned with your BELIEF.
Bingo bango bongo.
Lots of enzymes catalyzing chemical reactions in your cells right now, converting one group of chemicals to another group of chemicals. Chemistry isn't just something that happens in test tubes.
Apparently the message isn't getting through....
-1 -
I have the same reaction to people who say they eat "organic" food.I wish I could count the times I have read in things in the forums like "I eat chemical-free food" or "I try to avoid chemicals in my food." Sure, I know what they mean, but it just sounds so incredibly stupid.
All of us do. If it weren't organic it wouldn't be food.
(Then again, water isn't organic, but is it considered a food?)
In for inorganic apples and bananas!0 -
moremuffins wrote: »I love me some dihydrogen monoxide after a workout, and I just couldn't live without diatomic oxygen!
You wouldn't exist without chemicals and chemical reactions, so stop the hating!
when some idiots applied a lack of science to their undereducated understandings of the world and played chicken little.
Basically, they're a mild variation on the flat earthers who claim evolution is a theory, without understanding what a scientific theory is.
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
0 -
EatsNotTreats 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.
Some have helped. Have they all helped? You sure some of this stuff hasn't backfired?
So? Do you want us to stop experimenting because something might go wrong?
0 -
My daughter won't eat hydrogenated oils (margarine). She uses butter. She isn't terribly picky but she does make choices. I can't remember if there is anything else. If people were specific about what chemicals/chemical processes they won't eat there would be less confusion.
0 -
moremuffins wrote: »I love me some dihydrogen monoxide after a workout, and I just couldn't live without diatomic oxygen!
You wouldn't exist without chemicals and chemical reactions, so stop the hating!
when some idiots applied a lack of science to their undereducated understandings of the world and played chicken little.
Basically, they're a mild variation on the flat earthers who claim evolution is a theory, without understanding what a scientific theory is.
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
Don't feel dumb - evolution is a theory. It's just that a scientific theory is not defined in the same way as the common usage of the word theory. This should explain it for you:
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions