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!

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.

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.

try this:
ams.usda.gov/nop/

@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 free informing.

GAry 7
PS:I LIKES me chemicals,,,well, SOME of them, anyway,,,

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

“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?

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.

I couldn’t agree more, my chemical.

No, they aren’t. It is difficult to do in many cases, but they can form compounds.

“And what about the noble gasses? They’re chemically inert!”

Well, yeah, but they’re still chemicals.

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.

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

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!

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.