Chemicals!

DD is a biochemist who does a lot of work for the Food Standards Agency. You can probably guess what she thinks! And let's not forget that terrible chemical Dihydrogen Monoxide which seems to be creeping into everything these days - OK call it water if you must

nanna8

Having been round the sugar cane fields here sugar is far more ‘natural’ than some of the fake substitutes they use.

?

Everything in moderation (except for aspartame which should be banned).

Chemicals are good and chemicals are bad, the same substances can save lives and can kill you, it all depends on the way they are used.

When my youngest was a baby, he had a bit of a snuffle when we were on holiday (Guernsey actually). I went to a pharmacist expecting some competent advice. The assistant gave me some of those salt tablets. When I asked if they were OK for a 9 month old, she said "Oh yes, they're natural".

I thought (although I stupidly did not say) "So are coffee, tobacco, opium and cannabis".

Having been round the sugar cane fields here sugar is far more ‘natural’ than some of the fake substitutes they use.

Yes,Varian I think it probably is.

My OH when he was first diagnosed with Type II diabetes, very quickly discovered that carbohydrates had to be avoided or severely limited because carbs turn into sugar.

Is this taught at GCSE chemistry? It should be.

Snake venom and death cap mushrooms are "natural".

Ooops StatenIsland - sorry about the typo.

SatenIslad I'm diabetic and agree with you 100% that many people just don't understand what sugar is. So often, I see people claim they don't eat any sugars, but then cheerfully list how much fruit they eat. The amount of ignorance about nutrition is astonishing - and is worth billions of pounds to industries which exploit people's ignorance.

And of course organic chemistry is so much better than inorganic.

I don't want to derail but in answer to varian saying we can all think of other examples, I'd offer sugar as something misrepresented and misunderstood.

Out for a coffee in the park, I witnessed a grandfather being given a severe reprimand from his wife for having bought his granddaughters a very small ice popsicle each. "They are not allowed sugar," she screamed at him.

Of course, I don't know the breakdown of ingredients. The lollies may have had a tiny amount of glucose syrup in them.

Doesn't all food, even a humble lettuce leaf turn to glucose when processed by our bodies? Don't cows produce glucose from grass which trickles into our milk? I accept that syrup is a concentrated form but felt the woman's reaction somewhat hysterical as if he'd given them a giant bag of Mars Bars or Haribo.

What annoys me is when people say someone is "sanguine" when they mean they are calm.

The 4 humours are (with a little help from Wikipedia) :

Sanguine: highly talkative, enthusiastic, active, and extroverted.

Choleric: independent, decisive, goal-oriented, and ambitious.... natural leaders....also violent, vengeful, and short-tempered.

Melancholic: analytical and detail-oriented, deep thinkers, introverted, thoughtful, reserved, and often anxious.

Phlegmatic: relaxed, peaceful, quiet, and easy-going, sympathetic and care about others.

The misuse of a word like "chemicals" is part of a certain political lexicon.

Chemicals are bad but natural is good.

It is just one example of the way language is used in an inaccurate simplistic way to promote an agenda.

The right wing popular press are experts at this sort of distortion of the language. It is not just lazy, it is much more sinister. I am sure we can all think of many other examples.

GillT57

I agree that is it easier to write, but do reporters always have to say it? And politicians?

No, it's lazy

Like so many words 'chemicals' has a precise meaning and a popular meaning.

I am not sure there is much you can do about it.

I'm guessing that only a small minority of those who work in the media have a scientific education.

I agree that is it easier to write, but do reporters always have to say it? And politicians?

the use of the word 'jabs' instead of injections for example.
It's so much easier to type, though!

I agree, and the assumption that 'additives' are always something to be avoided. I get irritated by the infantilization of language, the use of the word 'jabs' instead of injections for example.

Really annoys me that things like vinegar, washing soda etc are considered 'natural ' but chemicals are somehow bad!!

You're right of course.
But this is another area where nothing is likely to happen.

We need to educate people.
Fat chance!

We wouldn't eat anything!

KS2 chemical reactions in cooking:
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/zjrs34j

Sounds very sensible and indeed useful, to me.

Agree