tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post396925151487321200..comments2024-03-29T09:05:29.819-04:00Comments on Chemjobber: Podcast: Dr. Rebecca Guenard and Chemjobber on chemophobia, parentingChemjobberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-79216852771587746472013-01-29T12:33:29.479-05:002013-01-29T12:33:29.479-05:00FWIW, I also become irrationally angry when I see ...FWIW, I also become irrationally angry when I see signs touting "organic food" that isn't salt or water. Ditto with I see "organic beer".bboooooyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-35518856080058644392013-01-28T23:55:09.891-05:002013-01-28T23:55:09.891-05:00Anon 6:57 - I generally agree with your point of v...Anon 6:57 - I generally agree with your point of view, but I think that surrendering the word "chemical" as an umbrella term leaves an open door for those who seek to demonize them. The potential harm or benefit of chemicals not only has a concentration-dependence (as discussed in the podcast) but there is also a contextual aspect. And even within a given context, such as the food industry you mention, there are certainly gray areas. Preservatives, for example, may have a negative effect on the taste/appeal of a food product, but its shelf life may also allow it to be shipped long distances to impoverish areas. How does one begin to weigh these pros/cons? <br /><br />Due to these ambiguities, I don't think it is fair to assume that manufacturers or consumers can navigate what should and shouldn't be branded as a "chemical" in the convention that you proposed to be acceptable. Rather, more descriptive language ("preservative", "artificial flavoring/coloring", etc.) should be used, rather than "chemical". And, yes, ideally the public should have an appreciation of the positive/neutral/negative implications associated with particular chemicals. <br /><br />CoulombicExplosionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-67000505182713258362013-01-28T21:57:42.333-05:002013-01-28T21:57:42.333-05:00I have my degree in Chemistry and do not consider ...I have my degree in Chemistry and do not consider myself irrationally afraid of chemicals. When a food product advertizes that it is free of chemicals I am aware that it contains chemicals in the scientific sense- H2O, amino acids, fatty acids, alcohols, etc. But I also know that the company isn't using the word chemical in the scientific sense, it is using an alternate dictionary definition, that of a product that does not contain synthetic additives or preservatives. As far as I am concerned the point of language is to make one self understood. If I understand what the wording indicates about a certain item and the wording is not ambiguous to the general public, then is it really a problem? There are products of chemical industries that are inferior (and cheaper) than agricultural products. I find the smell of artificially flavored coffee revolting, a boxed cake with artificial vanilla does not have the complexity of taste that a dessert made with a vanilla bean does, polyester doesn't feel the same on my skin as cotton or silk. Was the switch to crisco from butter really a triumph of modern science and Chemistry? It is off-putting and patronizing when scientists go on a propaganda bender and start ranting that everyone who doesn't want to buy a product with "chemicals in it" is an uneducated, fearful moron. I don't want to do three cheers for chemistry, I want to accept that the scientific discipline can be applied in many ways some of which are extremely useful, some of which are neutral, and some of which have negative repercussions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-72268291914308607072013-01-28T20:08:04.560-05:002013-01-28T20:08:04.560-05:00Note to listeners: I'm hearing reports that th...Note to listeners: I'm hearing reports that the player is cutting out at odd points, maybe? My apologies. Chemjobberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15932113680515602275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8964719845369935777.post-14024659078824263472013-01-28T15:23:02.506-05:002013-01-28T15:23:02.506-05:00CJ- thanks to you and Rebecca for sharing your con...CJ- thanks to you and Rebecca for sharing your conversation. It's touching on many of the topics we hope to cover Saturday. The great thing about ScienceOnline is that the audience for a given session can be jam-packed with experts on the topic, like Rebecca and Prof. Francl herself. We'll miss you at the session!Carmenhttp://cenblog.orgnoreply@blogger.com