Chemophobia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Bronze-level article
Tell me about
your mother

Psychology

Icon psychology.svg
For our next session...
Popping into your mind
Style over substance

Pseudoscience

Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
There is no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever.
—Vani Hari (the Food Babe) being not even wrong[1]

Chemophobia is the fear, distrust, or dislike of anything seen as a "chemical." Like various other "phobias," its use is non-clinical as it is not recognised as an actual irrational fear, but rather describes a set of prejudices against chemicals.

Contents

[edit] Which chemicals?

See also the "Chemical Analysis of the Air".
Chemical (n.): any substance with a name that cannot be pronounced correctly by a moron on his or her first attempt.
—vertigodrage[2]

Since pretty much everything is a chemical (well, everything cooler than plasma[3]), chemophobia is a somewhat odd condition. Chemophobia is specifically a distrust of what people view as "artificial" chemicals – food additives, drugs, pesticides and so on. This is usually attributed to a lack of trust and knowledge among the public, which is often fueled by tabloid-based health scares and the occasional additive shown to possibly be toxic. Advances in the field of analytical chemistry are also thought to be behind chemophobia, as modern techniques are capable of identifying substances in very low (parts per billion or even trillion) and harmless quantities.

Chemophobia has spawned many marketing campaigns designed to make the public think certain products are better. Foods or products that are advertised as "100% chemical free"[4] – besides being nonsense because everything is a chemical – play on and reinforce fears of human-made chemicals, automatically equating them with being bad.[5]

In particularly severe cases, chemophobia may even apply to synthetically-manufactured versions of perfectly harmless and indisputably natural (as far as that can be seriously argued to matter) chemicals like raspberry ketone.

Side note: There are lots of two-syllable toxins out there[6][7][8], so chemophobes using "Can I pronounce it?" as a criteria for safety may find themselves very dead and/or in violation of the Geneva conventions. For fun, two of those three are natural as well...

[edit] Appeal to nature

See the main article on this topic: Appeal to nature
I don't like 'em putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay!
Alex Jones[9]

At the heart of chemophobia is the fallacy of "appeal to nature". This appeal makes the assumption that anything "natural" is good and anything "unnatural" is bad. As anyone with a knowledge of chemistry will know, the line between natural and unnatural chemicals is a blurred one, or even totally non-existent. Furthermore, there are many natural compounds which are very toxic (such as botulinum toxin, strychnine, lead acetate, asbestos, snake and spider venom, cardiac glycosides, cyanide, aristolochic acid, hexavalent chromium compounds…). The line between safe and unsafe is also not always so clear (due to e.g., individual allergies or risk-benefit analysis), but generally the dose makes the poison, whether natural or synthetic.

Many industrially-important chemicals are produced via natural (biological) processes, such as fermentation to produce ethanol and monosodium glutamate, or extracted from plants and bacteria, such as caffeine extracted from coffee beans. Equally, these substances can be synthesised in a lab and purified in the same way. Despite absolutely no detectable differences between purified natural products and their synthesised counterparts, chemophobia postulates that the "artificial" one is worse. (Perhaps the artificial one suffers from water memory.) Although there can be environmental or cost issues between the two production methods, this isn't always the case and is mostly irrelevant to the nature of the chemical itself.

Interestingly, many of those who suffer from chemophobia have no problem using synthetic products as long as they are marketed appropriately. For instance, the synthetic (but, more importantly, "alternative") compounds Tetrasil and Miracle Mineral Supplement, as well as many others, are regularly used by naturopaths and others who claim to believe in the superiority of "natural" products. For these customers, what's important in a product is probably not so much whether something really is "natural" as whether it's popular in alternative medicine circles.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. Hari, Vani. The Food Babe Way: Break Free from the Hidden Toxins in Your Food and Lose Weight. Little, Brown: 2014. p. 40. Quoted in Orac, "The Food Babe: 'There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever'." ScienceBlogs: February 12, 2015. This quote was edited in a reprint of the book to indicate more clearly that "chemical" referred to ractopamine. See Google Books version.
  2. Because none of these are chemicals /s Skeptic Reddit
  3. Okay, okay, probably not dark matter or other forms of energy either. Sheesh
  4. "£1,000,000 for 100% chemical free material?" Royal Society of Chemistry (Archived from September 7, 2015)
  5. There's no such thing as 'chemical-free' food! Video exposes idiotic fad for describing products as being natural or chemical by Victoria Woollaston (07:01 EST, 23 July 2015). Even the Daily Mail calls it an "idiotic fad" (archived from October 26, 2015).
  6. Ricin
  7. Sarin
  8. Abrin
  9. Alex Jones: Chemicals in the water are turning "the freaking frogs gay Right Wing Talk (YouTube)


Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools