When did 'chemical' become a bad word?

mykaylis 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, 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.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

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.