One thing that bugs me is the appropriation of scientific words by people who twist them for their own ends. One that really gets me is "natural", as in, "This product is all natural!". They imply that means it’s good for you, somehow, but I counter that arsenic is an element. You can’t get more natural than that!
Another is the word "chemical". People use it like it’s bad. Chemicals kill! We associate them with toxic and noxious substances, cleansers, nasty things added to our food that makes us sick.
But the word means nothing of the sort. Water is a chemical. So is the air we breathe (the components are, at least, including diatomic oxygen and nitrogen).
It’s time to take the word back! Neville Reed, a director of Britain’s Royal Society of Chemistry, has said he would happily give one million pounds to anyone who can produce a substance that is 100% chemical-free.
This is impossible, of course, and he said it to publicize misleading advertising like I pointed out above. He got fed up when the advertising standards in the UK defended a ridiculous ad saying Miracle Gro, a chemical fertilizer, was “100 per cent chemical-free”.
That would mean it’s not made of matter. Of course, the company says there is a colloquial meaning to the word "chemical", which is true, but they’re being weasels. Obviously there are chemicals in the fertilizer, even by the traditional or colloquial sense (Apple recently said something similar: don’t believe what we say in our ads).
I think the RSC should make this offer official. Of course, they’d be flooded with nonsense and woo-woo; people claiming they have bottled Dark Energy or the ether or some other phlogiston. That’s inevitable.
But it would also raise peoples’ awareness that the advertising industry dupes them constantly. I’d love to see more folks understanding this. It’s not just products like fertilizer either: it’s political ads, public service announcements, the news, and pretty much everything else you can see on TV or read in a magazine. Even some blogs indulge in misleading statements to sway people — OMG!
A little skepticism goes a long way. And that is guaranteed 100% chemical free.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
And we all know the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide…. http://www.dhmo.org/
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Asymptotically-free quark-gluon plasma. All the ingredients of chemical elements, but no elements.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Isn’t skepticism a process that happens in the brain? Aren’t neurotransmitters involved in that? Aren’t neurotransmitters chemicals? Mmmmmm.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
From the Dirty Jobs TV show comes the best “all-natural” response ever:
Guest(cooking deep-fried pork rind): “It’s all natural!”
Mike Rowe: “So is lightning.”
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Is the textile industries use of the term Nanotechnology to describe new fibers fair and/or accurate?
This article (http://www.techlink.org.nz/Case-studies/Technological-practice/Soft-Materials/smart-fibres/page4.htm) describes a process that sounds more like chemistry. Nanotechnology to me means really, really, really tiny machines, i.e. technology.
Applying nano-scale chemical ions to each other is advanced chemistry.
Right?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
LOL T.E.L. So if I produce an electron cloud I can have my million pounds?
Damn cheeky physics geeks…
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Does anybody else hate how people have been using the word organic lately to promote healthy food? Gasoline is organic, I don’t see people drinking up at the pumps.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Next time you are in the grocery store, check for “Organic Salt”…!
(Is it “Iodized” or not?)
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
We’re I live the word ‘nanotechnology’ has become for some people a synonym to car paint repair set. Only because this set was advertised as such…
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Check out the Gruen Transfer from ABC Australia, it’s a really interesting look at advertising (and pretty funny).
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I live in a building with a Whole Foods in it. I think the food is pretty delicious (and I love that you basically are required to have a visible tattoo or be pierced in some way to work there- but nice people them Whole Food folk).
But, here’s the thing - they abuse the terms “natural” and “organic” too much as well. 99% of pesticides are “natural”- they’re made by the plants to protect themselves. It’s not necessarily “bad” to have pesticides as long as they are used properly and are the right kind.
The flip side of that is what they don’t realize. Growing food the way they want done reduces yields, increases prices, and can have some potentially bad effects (e coli in your onions from Mexico). But people that shop there just go crazy with the basic key words of organic, pesticides, etc.
Think we need to increase funding for science education for 15 bazillion reasons and this is another one.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Organic is another word that is used innapropriately. A friend of mine keeps asking me to try organic food and gets infinitely frustrated when I tell him that pretty much everything I eat is organic. However, I wouldn’t be opposed to trying a synthetic apple or two.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Phil,
Excellent post. Natural can be dangerous. I’ve never understood the ideal distinction between “organic” and “synthetic”. Expecially when we take “synthetic organic chemistry” into consideration.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Organic chemistry refers to chemistry that envolves molecules with carbon in it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Catelli: As much as I dislike it, “nanotechnology” just means “some component of this item is really small, on the nanometer scale.” The really small thing doesn’t need to be an active machine; I saw an article a few years back about ancient Egyptian cosmetics using “nanotechnology” because some of the particles found in said cosmetics were sufficiently small. As long as the textiles in question have some really small components, they’re nanotechnology.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Let’s not dump the baby with the melamine in a quest for semantic purity. There are plenty of manufactured chemicals that you don’t want in your food, air, or water. In a consumer environment largely without effective regulatory oversight, it’s no wonder people worry about “chemicals”. Dead and poisoned children and pets are all too real recent byproducts of modern industrial chemistry in the service of short term profit. Unfortunately, it’s a short conceptual jump from well documented toxic hazards to the woo-woo world of homeopathy and coffee enemas.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Actually, a totally ionized hydrogen plasma should qualify as “Chemical-free”. Without the bound electrons, chemical interactions are impossible.
Of course, this does nothing to take away from the basic point.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
When I tell people that I work at the gold mine in Cripple Creek they usually comment on how bad for the environment the cyanide is that they use on the leach pad (a dilute cyanide solution used to dissolve the gold and other metals so they can be pumped to a facility for processing). If they bring that up then I usually tell them that the cyanide is not what they need to worry about. I say that the amount of cyanide used is nothing compared to the amount of dihydrogen monoxide used! Then I go about explaining the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide compared to cyanide. Of course I always let them know the truth after I make my point on how easy it is to be misled. You can get people to believe almost anything, even without lying, and that can be a dangerous power in the wrong hands!
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
You shouldn’t be surprised that people do not like definitions. Having to learn is work, and who wants to do that?
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
So in effect, this is an X-prize for dark matter.
Cool.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Those are two of my big pet-peeves too. A while ago I lived with a very woo-prone group of people -if it said “natural” or “organic” on it, it was beyond all question, and everything else was next of kin to rat poison- and it nearly drove me mad. I’m a microbiology student at Colorado State University, and my response to the ‘natural’ thing is “So’s anthrax. Plague. Botulism. Saxitoxin. An average lifespan that rarely reaches 30. Shall I continue?”
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Boy does this push one of my hot buttons! I rail on this to the point that people now run the other way when they see me coming.
We have a mattress manufacturer in the Bay Area (they may be elsewhere, but I’ve only heard their ads here) called “European Sleepworks” (if it’s European it has to be better, right?). In their ads they proudly boast “our mattresses are 100% chemical-free!” OK, so what are they made of? The same goes for “Tom’s of Maine” toothpaste, which is “all natural.” So is asbestos, strychnine, cyanide and botulinum toxin.
At my client’s site, the refrigerator in the break room is stocked with “organic fat-free half & half.” What’s in the other “half?”
- Jack
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I’ll buy anything as long as It has a green label with “organic” stamped on it and has been packaged by some rare pygmy tribe.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
> But it would also raise peoples’ awareness that the advertising industry dupes them constantly.
No. No it would not. 1/2 the people are 100 IQ or under. Possibly more than half of them, due to the number under the peak. They’re not going to stop being duped.
Some number above the peak have abdicated obtaining an education for themselves, and while technically speaking, they’re smart enough, they don’t have the information and they wouldn’t know how to reason about it if they had it.
Some additional number above that line has taken another woo-woo train, such as rabid environmentalism, religion, voodoo, etc., and is ideologically opposed to anything without the proper stamp of approval, full of stampage and signifying nothing.
Finally, there’s a huge mass of people who live glued to their televisions (a lot of them watching Dr. Who, I’m afraid, one of the worst TV shows ever created) who have simply had it drummed into their heads that the things they should do, believe, eat and say are those things they see on TV. This is an “easy way out” and people take it because they are simply lazy.
Your hope that marketing shiny happy words to people will lose its power has no underlying basis in social trends. Sorry dude — half the people are fairly stupid, and most of the rest act that way for one reason or another; functionally, there is no difference at all.
That’s why we can’t obey our constitution; that’s why we can’t elect reasonable politicians; that’s why NASA is underfunded; that’s why Roswell is a nationally known keyword; that’s why religion is on every corner with open doors and science is performed hidden away behind locked doors in institutions only found at very wide intervals.
That’s why kids can’t do math; that’s why the public doesn’t care that kids can’t do math; that’s why Paris Hilton is generally popular news and ultracapacitors generally aren’t.
But hey, don’t let that stop ya. It’s fun to watch the chemicals rise to the surface of your skin. Shows you’re a user. Wait - what’s that knock on the door? They’ve come for your CHEMICALS!
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
> Unfortunately, it’s a short conceptual jump from well
> documented toxic hazards to the woo-woo world of
> homeopathy and coffee enemas.
It is? Can I have that coffee thing administered by a hot asian chick, then? Um, for science, of course. We’ll need to make several runs and compare the data for statistical purposes, and I think a control group of hot asian chicks who just rub my back would be good… mmm, coffee. Just lay me out prostate, erm… I mean prostrate, and we can proceed.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
This chemical free stuff drives me crazy for year after year. Finally someone with more impact than my occasional ramblings makes a statement.
Nanotechnology:
Nanotechnology is not about machines (at least not now and they won’t be nano). It is a term for systems in between the solid state physics and the molecular level. The properties of this system are caused by their size and their composition whereas molecules and and solids are completely described by their composition (a silicon single crystal is a silicon single crystal, water, DHMO, is water). i.e.: The color of nanoparticles is size dependant, molecules and solids have size-independent spectra.
This is the chemical description of nanotechnology.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
A substance 100% chemical free is an oxymoron. Every thing — that is, everything — is made of chemicals. At their base, even elements are chemicals. See the Periodic Table for more info.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
It’s true that anything likely to be on sale will be made of chemicals; but it’s not true that everything at all scales is chemical in nature. See my post near the top.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
If only I could bring a teaspoon-full of neutron star to earth… Then after it’s done crashing through the Earth, I’d win my prize.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Chemical Free? Well, then, shine a flashlight at the man. Photons don’t contain any chemicals.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Sorry Phil, I have to take issue here. “All Natural” products do not, at least in my eyes, suggest that they’re supposed to be healthy *because* they’re all natural, but suggest that they are much likely to be healthier than alternative products that include artificial additives (coloring, preservatives, flavoring), etc.
When you buy a food product, that the product itself is of a relatively harmless nature is, and should be, a given. So if there is a bag of frozen vegetables, one “all natural” and one with artificial additives, it is quite legitimate to suggest that the “all natural” variety is likely to be healthier than its alternative.
Nit-picking like yours is really, just that.
“but I counter that arsenic is an element”
Except if the choice was between “all natural” arsenic and “arsenic drenched in Red #5″, at least in relative terms, the former IS better for your health than the latter. And the “all natural” labels are trying to convey just that kind of difference.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Sorry RawheaD, but I have to take issue with your issue.
Most of the additives that people complain about are antioxidants and other preservatives. They all have nasty sounding names, but the foods without them are demonstratively less healthy for you after only a very short time. Having been working with microbes in a testing situation for the past few years, I can say that you don’t want to know how many of those little buggers take up residence on your food immediately, and anything that can slow down their multiplying is a good thing.
You can debate the long term effects of BHT vs. food without it, but in the short run you’ll be a lot sicker.
- Jack
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
The complete works of Hunter S. Thompson would classify as material without chemicals. On second thought, it was so heavily influenced by chemicals, maybe it is a bad example.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
@Jack Hagerty
“Most of the additives that people complain about are antioxidants and other preservatives”
That cannot be substituted by non-artificial alternatives? And––as you yourself touched on at the end––can people be guaranteed that they won’t find out 20 years down the line that these supposedly beneficial preservatives are actually carcinogens or cause for Alzheimer’s?
Natural food aficionados are generally people who have been disillusioned by promises of the FDA and the food products industry that the “chemicals” they use are all completely harmless––until 5, 10, 15 years of study later show that many *are* harmful and some even deadly. They do not feel that the supposed benefits outweigh the potential costs. Rather than be told 20 years from now that all the Splenda they’ve been ingesting was what caused [_______] (fill in the blank), they want to stick with good old sugar and honey taken with moderation, because they are tried and tested substances with hundreds and thousands of years of human history to back it up.
Regarding the preservation of foods, many natural food aficionados understand quite well that “no artificial preservatives = shorter shelf life”. That’s why they tend to be much more locavorous than most people.
Note also that I’m not saying that the claims of “all natural” labels as being healthier are always accurate, but rather that making claims like that is “legitimate”–––just as your claim that, at least in the short term, artificial antioxidants and other preservatives in food is actually a good thing, is also legitimate.
In the end, if you want to eat healthy, you can’t rely on labels and you can’t rely on statements from the food products industry. You have to be aware of what’s in the food, and make informed choices. The problem I see in what Phil said and how he said it is that, while it probably is not his intention, it is more than likely to be interpreted by non-conscious eaters as an endorsement of all the junk they like to ingest, when many of the artificial additives that they eat, to borrow your words, are “demonstrably less healthy for you.”
So, to sum it up, is it stupid to believe that as long as a food product has an “all natural” label on it, it’s going to be healthy for you? Of course.
Does that make it OK to mock and ridicule the healthy foods movement and those who are, or are trying to be, conscious of what they eat and what they feed their children? I think not.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
People talk about taking words back. How about listening to people who’ve been studying words as their profession? Take any Linguistics 101 class, and they will tell me what a word’s meaning is: it is what people use that particular word for.
In other words, when a whole population of people use the word “chemical” to mean “a substance produced by artificial means, most likely with help of modern chemistry,” then it IS the meaning of the word in English. Yes, that differs from what chemist thinks. It is just natural (no pun intended) that everyday words get different meanings in a special area or vice versa.
If somebody says “Hey, the light is gone, this room is completely dark,” would you call him stupid because he himself must be emitting infrared blackbody radiation, which is light, and hence there is no way a room (with a live person in it) is completely dark, and anybody who utters such a nonsense should be sent to high school physics class?
Or if you see “no animal permitted” in a restaurant, would you laugh at the owner, because humans are animals, and obviously the resturant is refusing to serve anybody?
When an airport security officer tells you “no liquid material allowed on board,” do you retort by “where can I drain my blood before boarding? It is liquid, you idiot!”? (Well, on a completely off-topic note, somebody should try that and upload the whole thing to Youtube.)
It’s the same issue here.
When people say “stupid” things like “Chemical-free,” we actually ALL understand what it means very well. It is not only condescending, but actually ignorant of basic linguistic principles, to pretend that we do not get it.
If you want to argue that “Not all such ‘Chemicals’ are bad; many are introduced for good reason,” then fine, by all means go ahead.
But it is really pointless to mix that with pseudolinguistic arguments.
- Yongjik
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
What is Nanotechnology?
A basic definition: Nanotechnology is the engineering of functional systems at the molecular scale. This covers both current work and concepts that are more advanced. (http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm)
Nanotechnology, or, as it is sometimes called, molecular manufacturing , is a branch of engineering that deals with the design and manufacture of extremely small electronic circuits and mechanical devices built at the molecular level of matter. The Institute of Nanotechnology in the U.K. expresses it as “science and technology where dimensions and tolerances in the range of 0.1 nanometer (nm) to 100 nm play a critical role.”
(http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213444,00.html)
I don’t dispute that the textile industry may be involved in developing nanomaterials. But calling the resultant material nanotechnology misuses the term.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jick:
But in this particular case, this fertilizer has phosphorus pentoxide and potassium oxide listed among its ingredients. If you’re going to refer to something by its chemical name, it’s an effing chemical, even in the colloquial sense.
How can you possibly defend calling such a product “100% chemical free?”
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Dark matter is chemical-free, but I’m not sure how to produce it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
100% chemical free. It’s called a vacuum.
jick
I have to disagree, just because people are using the term chemical incorrectly (and we are all suppose to know what they really mean) doesn’t excuse their improper use of the term. Its standards like that that shove science aside in favor of what the masses want to believe, no matter what reality is. So I will continue to point that out to all of the carpet cleaner companies that want to sell me 100% chemical free carpet shampoo, until they realize it has chemicals. Even naturally occurring chemicals can be made in a lab.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“…people claiming they have bottled Dark Energy…”
It seems someone already has!
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I don’t think it’s shoving science aside, it’s simply a layman’s definition vs a scientific one. Jick gave very good other examples that you ignored. What about “no animals allowed” or “no light?” Or what about the classic scientific “theory” vs layman’s “theory?” There is no question what is right because both are. There is no light in the room because I am talking visible light to my retna, I’m not referring to particle physics. and there are no chemicals because I am not talking about all chemicals, but manmade toxic ones. Just like when I tell my son to was the germs off his hands, I’m not talking about all the germs on his hands necessary to survive.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I noticed that the cold mitigator Zicam has chosen to splash “homeopathic” all over it’s packaging for marketing purposes, even though it’s not.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Traffic news I used to hear in Japan made me chuckle.
‘Road XYZ is clogged up due to NATURAL congestion.’ as if that is the nature of roadways.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:30 am
The claim by Miracle Gro was for their organic fertilizer. Even taking their ‘colloquial’ meaning of chemical, that doesn’t mean it’s safe. Copper Sulphate is an approved organic fertilizer and you wouldn’t want to ingest too much of that!
December 4th, 2008 at 1:37 am
dihydrogen monoxide, pah!
The real problem is with a solution of equal parts Hydrogen Hydroxide and Hydrohydroxic acid!
December 4th, 2008 at 3:23 am
I know this is a bit of a stretch from “natural”, but I have a similar semantic problem with the “oooooooh” factor of the implied meaning in words like “supernatural”, actually I think the word is stupid primarily because it’s so awfully ethnocentric. It assumes that what we can see, perceive, detect, is “nature”, and anything beyond that is uh, supernature? And frankly that’s rubbish.
Let’s take, say (for the sake of the argument), ghosts. If they exist, then they’re part of this universe, part of what is “nature”, and thus not “supernatural”. If they don’t exist, well then they don’t exist, period. There is nothing ooooh or aaaah about that at all. Just because we can’t “see” it or can’t “explain” something doesn’t make it so special that it’s “super”-natural. The vast majority of everything can neither be seen nor explained by us silly humans, yet it’s perfectly real and natural.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:56 am
“One that really gets me is “natural”, as in, “This product is all natural!”. They imply that means it’s good for you, somehow, but I counter that arsenic is an element. You can’t get more natural than that!”
Look up “natural” (e.g. here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural) - if they meant it’s good for you as in definition 1, then you got a point. But that’s what you’re reading into it - I personally see no reason why one should assume they mean anything but definition 4c or 6. There’s nothing wrong with using it this way to imply that it’s healthy.
I agree that the use of “chemical” is somewhat out of place - but I’m with Jick on that one. It’s just how language works, and it definitely doesn’t with the exactness of science, I guess that’s something we have to live with it. I don’t see how it does science itself any harm though, that’s taking it a little too far IMO. But you could always come up with a catchy word for what they’re trying to say (no HARMFUL chemicals ADDED) (other than good old “natural” of course :). I’m sure the advertising industry will love you for it.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Okay, Not only is Dihydrogenmonoxide dangerous and a universal solvent but think about this. What happens when you put Sodium in water? It burns, Chlorine is a poisonous gas could you imagine if these two elements got together? Oh, wait that is table salt…. never mind
December 4th, 2008 at 6:48 am
I remember George Carlin giving a few rants on the misuse of words, especially by politicians and advertisers. A cleaned-up version of one quote is about how many foods claim to be “all natural”, like it actually means something. “Dog crap is ‘all natural’. It just doesn’t taste very good”.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:21 am
How about some Quantum/Quantic Physics and the law of attraction? (The Secret, anyone???)
December 4th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Amen to this entry. Bah humbug on advertizers.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:49 am
The one that really gets me going is the “Low Sodium Sea Salt” craze. I had that discussion with the Mother in law over Thanksgiving dinner. Apparently, her friends doctor recommended all natural sea salt instead of table salt because the sea salt is lower in sodium. To make it even worse, both she and her friend are teachers. It makes my eyeballs want to pop out my head!
December 4th, 2008 at 8:24 am
The appropriation of some word from their scientific (true) meaning bugs me too. Another example is the word “organic”. Neddless to say, i would never eat any fruit or vegetable wich is not organic (wich would mean that it is a rock).
December 4th, 2008 at 8:34 am
This comment is 100% chemical free. Now, where is my million pounds?!?
December 4th, 2008 at 8:42 am
@Guest:
Sea salt is lower in sodium, but only because sodium gets replaced by stuff like calcium, potassium, magnesium, sulfate, lead, mercury, cadmium, and strontium. And it doesn’t have iodine in it (usually), which is a rather useful “chemical” if you enjoy not dieing.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:54 am
“That cannot be substituted by non-artificial alternatives? And––as you yourself touched on at the end––can people be guaranteed that they won’t find out 20 years down the line that these supposedly beneficial preservatives are actually carcinogens or cause for Alzheimer’s?”
This is where you start going wrong. You are drawing the conclusion that because these preservatives are artificial, they must be worse than natural alternatives (if they even exist). This is exactly what we are arguing against. Just because the preservative is “non-artificial” does NOT mean it is better. Just because it is “all-natural” does not mean it is going to be safer than an artificial alternative.
@jick: The problem with using the word “chemical” in the way these people are using is not because it is improper, it is because it is misleading. In the context we are using here it’s a “scare” word without any real meaning, allowing people to use it in any situation they want. Further, by intentionally confusing their meaningless use of the word with the technical use of the word cranks use it to mislead and defraud people.
“The one that really gets me going is the “Low Sodium Sea Salt” craze. ”
That one is not actually that implausible, you can substitute sodium chloride with potassium chloride. I was a bit confused with “sodium free club soda”, since club soda is just seltzer water with salt, until I read the ingredients and noticed they were using potassium chloride.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
llewelly: “material” comes from the latin “materia”, meaning “matter”. Photons aren’t matter.
The idea of a stream of subatomic particles is good though! A stream of electrons would fit the bill. A glueball would work too, as would neutronium.
And what about the noble gasses? They’re chemically inert!
December 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Numerous college campuses have residence halls that are substance free. Doesn’t sound very comfortable or private to me.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
As Grace Slick sang 30 some years ago “,,,ah, preservatives may be ,,,preserving you,,,ah, I think you might have missed that,,,”
Cellular degradation, due to that “natural” process we call aging, is apparently affiliated with cumulative dna damage from free radicals, “naturally” produced during cellular metabolism. Preservatives, such as BHT, are anti-oxidants that inhibit and quench free radical formation, thus POSSIBLY slowing dna damage,,,and freeing the Sirtuin dna repair mechanism to continue it’s other job of suppressing (organ specific) protein expression. Inappropriate protein expression leads to eventual cell expiration.
,,,which is the very definition of “natural old age,,,”
I think I’ll just keep experimenting with “synthetic” anti-oxidants, as I have for the last 30 some years. If it works to preserve my biological vitality, we’ll know about it in, say, another 30 or 40 years,,,I’ll have to get back to you on that,,,
GAry 7
December 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
All of these are pet peaves of mine. But I would like to add “This product has not been tested on animals.” Does that mean that they have no idea what will happen to my head/hair when I use the shampoo? If my kid swallows some, do they have no idea of how to treat her in the emergency room? I’m sorry, but animal testing has its place. Some level of animal testing is appropriate. Cosmetics is an are where it is particulary necessary as children often want to “borrow” mom’s makeup and occasionally end up ingesting some of it…
Some companies may apply claims of “cruelty-free” or “not tested on anmials” solely to their finished cosmetic products. However, these companies may rely on raw material suppliers or contract laboratories to perform any animal testing necessary to substantiate product or ingredient safety. Other cosmetic companies may rely on combinations of scientific literature, non-animal testing, raw material safety testing, or controlled human-use testing to substantiate their product safety.
Many raw materials, used in cosmetics, were tested on animals years ago when they were first introduced. A cosmetic manufacturer might only use those raw materials and base their “cruelty-free” claims on the fact that the materials or products are not “currently” tested on animals.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Alex Said:
“And what about the noble gasses? They’re chemically inert!”
Well, yeah, but they’re still chemicals.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
“And what about the noble gasses? They’re chemically inert!”
No, they aren’t. It is difficult to do in many cases, but they can form compounds.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I’ve taken it upon myself to only use Organic materials. Cause Natural materials these days just aren’t what they used to be
December 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“It’s time to take the word back!”
I couldn’t agree more, my chemical.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
> I’m sorry, but animal testing has its place. Some level of animal testing is appropriate.
No it isn’t. Innocent creatures that can’t object, can’t protect themselves, and have no oportunity for choice in the matter are not a reasonable risk mitigation tool for you to use. You want testing? Pay humans enough to be willing to take the risks. You’ll have more accurate, more detailed results, and the entire process with actually be ethical from front to back.
You’re no more than an animal yourself; any outlook to the contrary is illusory. If you support animal testing on animals that do not, more to the point cannot, consent, then you’re saying we can test on YOU without your consent. Doesn’t look so rosy now, does it? C’mere - lemme load up your eyes with this new shampoo… see if your eyes deliquesce. We’ll give the control group a nice salad.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Ben said:
“You’ll have more accurate, more detailed results, and the entire process with actually be ethical from front to back.”
If you want to argue that animal testing is unethical treatment of the animals, then follow that to its conclusion. But testing drugs in their earliest stages on humans cognizant of the risks could choke the progress of medicine. It could do so because the risks at that stage will be greater; the consequences will be much less certain. Would you, of sound mind, take that sort of risk just because they offered you a ton of money? And let’s say that you would. How many people would it takes to generate the body of statistics needed to demonstrate efficacy? How many human beings would that take? At, shall we say, $100,000 a pop, do you suppose that’s more, or less, expensive than what it is currently with standardized breeds of rodents?
You’re talking about making the pharmaceutical industry so expensive that either it can only cater to the extremely wealthy or must go out of business altogether. How many lives will that save?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
RawheaD - We’re basically on the same side here. I try to keep all overly processed and additive-laden foods out of my diet where possible.
However, the argument that “they told us it was safe and now we find it has cumulative effects” bumps up there with the anti-vaxxers. While it may be true (if difficult to prove) that in 30 years some statistical percentage of consumers may develop some condition due to decades of ingesting a substance, it is also true that some number of those same consumers will be 100% dead due to food poisoning and other preventable causes if the preservatives are not used.
- Jack
December 4th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p265/byzantia/cartoon.jpg
December 4th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Jack:
One of the best things that ever happened to those companies that sell bread was when ignorant folk demanded they remove all preservatives from their bread,,,which was added in the first place to prevent mold growth(you know, that yucky green stuff). The mold was essentially harmless but definitely unattractive. Removal of the preservatives, resulted in sales of more bread, because it became “spoiled” so fast,the bread was a bit cheaper(with no additives) so the sellers made more money. How’s THAT for a counter culture success story?
GAry 7
PS:I LIKES me chemicals,,,well, SOME of them, anyway,,,
December 5th, 2008 at 2:36 am
@Phil
I’m with you! I’ve been saying this for years. (The bite of the Black Adder is natural, as is the ensuing heart seizure). But keep in mind that some words are simply not controlled by the FDA in product labeling, such as “Natural”.
@Charles
@Ian Muir &
@mike Says:
“Does anybody else hate how people have been using the word organic lately to promote healthy food? Gasoline is organic, I don’t see people drinking up at the pumps.”
Nope. “Organic” has a different meaning when it comes to food labeling. For a product to be labeled “Organic” in the US, it has to meet specific USDA standards. I don’t think a bottle of gas in the soda pop aisle would pass.
http://tiny.cc/I1D7C
@guestwork
But “super” as a prefix comes from the Latin “beyond”, right? So supernatural = beyond nature. Makes sense to me anyhoo.
And while I’m on the subject, another pet peeve:
You can say “it’s the same thing” ,
OR
You can say “there’s no difference”
So why do people say “same difference”*?
Which is it, same or different? Those two words have opposite meanings. The next time someone says “same difference”, I challenge you to ask them “which?”.
*It’s a chemical-free phrase.
Oh, and the worse offender of all : QUANTUM
But wait, isn’t daylight chemical free now? Nice!
I enjoy watching you guys debate animal testing because it’s
chemical freeinforming.December 5th, 2008 at 2:40 am
oops
that USDA organic link didn’t work
try this:
ams.usda.gov/nop/
December 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am
@Jeffersonian:
Well, no. My point is, if something exists, it is not “beyond” nature. It’s well within nature. To pick up the example I used, if ghosts exist, then they’re not supernatural, they’re natural. (And if they don’t exist, they’re nothing.) If I could read someone elses mind or levitate through my apartment or light a candle (or my obnoxious neighbor) with a mere thought, then those might be forces no one could explain at our current human level of knowledge, but they’d be quite real and natural, not “super”-natural.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
@Ben
T.E.L. already mentioned the dramatic increase in prices this would lead to. What hasn’t been mentioned yet, though, is that it is actually likely that the researchers will not get more accurate results. Money as incentive to undergo guinea pig status has the potential to exacerbate the career test subject (the kind of person that bounces around participating in just about any testing they can, just for the money). Believe it or not, there are people who actually enroll in multiple studies at once, even though the enrollment protocol precludes such actions. They just don’t tell the investigators. What happens when someone takes part in multiple studies at the same time? Lots of really inaccurate data.
What needs to happen is for a greater understanding of human and non-human animal models, physiology, metabolic processes, protein expressions and so on to come about and for accurate computer models to be developed in such a manner that we will get reliable, accurate results for our pre-clinical trials. There has been a lot of progress in computer models, but there is still a need for non-human animal testing prior to clinical trials, partly to ensure the ethical treatment of the human subjects and partly to keep development costs down so that a) people can afford the medicines and b) so companies actually invest in developing new products.
Researchers are required by law to follow exceptionally strict guidelines as to how they handle and treat non-human animal subjects. In many cases, these guidelines ensure care far better than what many pets receive.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Todd,
You are so right. And let’s not forget that lab animals are bred for high physiological consistency (which helps filter out needless confounds), and that in many cases lab animals must be killed in order to get the data. Can’t do mass-spectrometry on brain nuclei when the neuclei are still in the living host!
December 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
While some people above (RawheaD, jick) make some good points about “chemicals” in food being potentially (and even provenly) dangerous, I don’t think Phil or anyone else here is arguing against that point. I believe the point is: the words “natural” and “organic” have been used as a marketing gimmick, the word “chemical” has been bastardized, and the results are a bunch of lemmings running around claiming that anything “natural” or “organic” is good while anything “chemical” is evil and deadly. I think that while well-intentioned, you guys are splitting hairs here, not Phil. And while Phil’s argument may not be exactly air tight symantically, I completely agree with his sentiment: the word “natural” has been abused as a marketing tool to steer people into “organic” food chains - for $$$$, regardless of how “organic” they really are (and I am not educated on the subject, but skeptical and paranoid enough to beleive in at least the possibility that a good percentage (at least) of said “organic” products are fraud, based on the money and abuse of language involved). I too am sick and tired of de stoopid, and “natural” “organic” “chemical-free” foods are (generally speaking) targeted towards de stoopid [not talking about you guys, you are obviously more educated and informed than said destoopid].
Arg, de stoopid. It hurts. And it tastes like chemicals. Hehehe.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The FDA and FTC have no formal regulations on “natural”, “organic” or “chemical-free” labeling on food and other products, but the USDA has tried to define “organic” in the context of food products. Their summary document on organic labeling can be found at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo
While still a bit iffy, I think that is a step in the right direction. Giving some sort of context or legal definition, even if it does twist away from the scientific definition, is better than nothing. The problem comes when the average consumer knows nothing about what that legal definition is (let alone the scientific one). Too many people see “natural”, “organic” and “chemical-free” and think that means the product is “healthy”, when all it really means is that it was not processed using artificial flavoring/coloring, ionizing radiation, sewage sludge (from the USDA document), or chemically-derived products/processes (I’m assuming they mean human-controlled chemical processes, rather than naturally occurring ones).
Let’s say there is a soda that is made completely from “organic” or “natural” ingredients. The consumer who subscribes to the “organic = healthy” idea would think that this soda is somehow inherently healthy, or at least healthier than non-organic sodas, despite the fact that it may have more calories than the “unhealthy” soda. Likewise, an “organic” food product may have more cholesterol than its non-”organic” counterpart.
While I agree that language changes, and definitions are only descriptions of how words are used, this “natural”, “organic” and “chemical-free” garbage muddies the waters and leads to dishonest marketing practices, not to mention vilifying scientific advances, such as preservatives that prevent spoilage. The preservative itself may or may not have some effect that only appears after chronic exposure. So, we don’t know with 100% certainty that such a product is safe or unsafe, until something happens and is linked to it. Spoilage, on the other hand, we do know causes illnesses (sometimes severe). On balance, then, the preservative-containing foods are better than the “organic” products, at least for products that are kept for an extended period of time.
Then again, as has been pointed out, even “organic” foods use pesticides and other products that are occasionally more poisonous or harmful than the non-”organic” alternative.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is, those terms are merely marketing gimmicks, as others have mentioned, and for all intents and purposes are devoid of any real meaning, as far as the end consumer is concerned.
Sorry for rambling on so long, but thanks for reading if you got through it all.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
This is like a product that I saw on the shelves of the grocery store where I work.
Sugar from a company called Florida Crystals.
They have a graphic on their bag which says:
NOW CERTIFIED 100% CARBON FREE
Now anyone who’s taken high school knows that sucrose has TWELVE CARBON ATOMS in it (C12H22O11). Without the carbon, you’d get 11 atoms of water.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Just to join in the fun (I haven’t read through all the comments, so apologies if someone else came up with thisbefore):
Ricin is a natural organic substance.
It’s also (IIUC) the most toxic substance known.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Phil, I really like your website. But beating up people for using the word “chemical” to mean “an artificial substance” is, for someone who claims to want to promote science, at the very least counterproductive. The word is commonly used to mean “an artificial substance”, as you well know, and the people reading these advertisements understand it to mean that.
If someone automatically associates “chemical-free” with “better product”, then yes, that demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on their part. But the use of the word “chemical” in the advertisements is not the problem there, is it?