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?

Ricin is a natural organic substance.

It’s also (IIUC) the most toxic substance known.

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.

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.

Arg, de stoopid. It hurts. And it tastes like chemicals. Hehehe.

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!