alexseanchai | (no subject)

(no subject)

Can someone define "chemicals" for me? In the sense of the word that's contrasted to "natural" and "organic", the sense referenced when saying "don't eat anything containing something you can't pronounce", the sense that's being criticized when observing that apples contain unpronounceables such as tyrosine and dihydrogen monoxide.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My brain automatically translates "chemicals" as used contrasting against "natural" as being molecular chains introduced into food products that do not occur naturally in the contributing ingredients, or those that do appear naturally but have been falsely elevated/decreased.

I have problems with all of the organic/chemical arguments as well as the GMO arguments.

That makes sense of the term. Thanks!

This is not really any clearer a definition. Cooking something alters its chemical structure in significant ways. Suppose you take a potato and roast it, by your definition that would make it no longer 'natural', since new molecular chains were introduced by the cooking process. I'm not someone who puts much stock in the contrast of natural vs. chemical, but I don't think most people who make that distinction would say that this kind of process made it unnatural.

You have a point, but I was specifically looking at the pre-cooking stage, as well as supplying a requested but subjective definition to the original question.

"Introduced" usually means "put into it from outside". New molecules are formed and existing molecules have their shape altered when food is cooked, but they aren't introduced from outside by the application of heat.

I think my example is compatible with my understanding of the term 'introduce', but whatever, we can raise another objection that doesn't have this problem: In enzymatic browning, enzymes in a food react to oxygen in the atmosphere. This does not make the apple unnatural to the general intuitive sense of the idiots who care about whether food is 'natural'.

We could also twist at your objection from the other direction by pointing to plant byproducts that are generated without the 'introduction' (by your definition) of any new substances but are considered 'unnatural' by the same idiots.

OK, seriously, I am heartily against the whole "CHEMICALS BAD" inanity. You're just pedanting wrong. If you're going to be a pedant, do it right.

The relevant definition from Merriam-Webster.com:

4: place, insert

Both of which indicate not only something brought in from outside, but doing so intentionally, which leaves out your examples.

The relevant definitions from dictionary.com:

9. to put or place into something for the first time; insert:
to introduce a figure into a design.

10. to bring in or establish, as something foreign or alien:
Japanese cooking was introduced into America in the 1950s.

Again, things done specifically by humans.

If you're going to pick at it, do it well.

Oh, and "idiot" is an ableist slur, and probably would not be something Alex would appreciate in their blog.

I was going to go with "any substance that scares the speaker", but that's probably more accurate.

Hah. Point.

(This came to mind because of Talking to the Spirits by Kenaz Filan and Raven Kaldera. "Chemicals" mess with signal clarity. Um, gentlefolks, define your terms please.)

The whole "apples contain dihydrogen monoxide!!!!1!" meme makes me giggle so hard. Actually, all of Dihydrogen Monoxide Awareness makes me giggle so hard. Best page on Facebook. ♥

"Chemicals" as generally used in that sense has no meaning whatsoever except "this is bad because we say so" - it gets used for a huge variety of things, many of which are the exact same molecules that are found in fresh fruits and vegetables.

I think they're going for something more like what I would call "synthetic" or "processed" - "this is a thing the production of which involved large amounts of complex human intervention, usually involving non-biologically-mediated chemical reactions, after it was extracted from an animal, vegetable, or mineral source."

But in actual practice it mean "whatever we feel like scaring people about today."

See, I'm with

melannen on this one; I don't agree that that usage has anything to it that can be nailed down specifically. That's because that usage is almost always rooted in the particular fears and scientific misunderstandings of the person using it in that way. In practice this means anything in manufacturing (especially food manufacturing) that makes the person using it uncomfortable or uncertain ends up being called a chemical.. And what makes any given person uncomfortable can be profoundly variable, even in chemophobic circles.

Synthetic or processed, as suggested, might be closer to what people think they're talking about when in that usage, but frankly while they might think that's what they're talking about, they're not; it's much more fungible and less specific. I give you cheese, and also fermented and distilled alcoholic spirits, and ask how many people are uncomfortable with those specifically on the basis of 'chemicals'. (Despite the fact that both -- even in froofy hand-crafted settings -- are indeed highly processed with significant human intervention/chemistry involved.) And those are just two immediately off the top of my head, but there's plenty of other traditional foodstuffs with a very long history that similarly involve significant human processing and profound chemical alterations to the starting materials.

Edited 2015-11-02 22:22 (UTC)

Ridiculous scare mongering by peopler who don't know how to science. Remember that vulvatoxin (mushrooms) and snake venom are natural, and things like water and salt aren't organic.

I am going to come in with others that say that it is scaremongering back for the most part, but I also wanted to note that thdre is very much a classist/elitist component to the reaction against processed and convenience foods. Eating organic, gluten free, non-processed foods is not something everyone can afford the time or money for.

+ food deserts also!

all of the above and especially this also

Yes, this. Best comment in this thread, especially with the followup.

"Chemical", as I've heard it used, usually means "synthetic elements added to food that provides no nutritional value, and might actively reduce the nutrition, but makes the food taste better or preserves it past a 'natural' expiration date."

It's a universal negative and often a pejorative against convenience foods.

I dunno, a lot of the things they complain about DO have nutritional value. Vitamins, minerals, calories from sugars. People object to high-fructose corn syrup as "unnatural" and "chemical", and that definitely has nutritional value, because it has calories. People object to MSG as "chemical", but it's the sodium salt of an essential amino acid, and provides your body with that amino acid (plus sodium, which is a very necessary mineral; it just happens to be one that most of us get an abundance of). Companies add vitamin D to milk and iodine to salt because those are essential things that many people don't get enough of, and people complain of those as being "chemicals".

Of course, many of those people don't actually understand what constitutes nutritional value, and probably think that the "chemicals" provide none at all, so from a subjective viewpoint, it works.

True - I was thinking "in the opinion of the person complaining" when I was writing it, but never made that explicit, because you're right about a lot of those "chemicals" having purpose and value from a more scientific perspective.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only