Last year, Nature Chemistry published an article by Alexander F. G. Goldberg and CJ Chemjobber titled “A comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products“. Everyone should read it. It’s a thorough description of all chemical-free products, and the paper itself is a free download. Here’s the introduction.
Manufacturers of consumer products, in particular edibles and cosmetics, have broadly employed the term ‘Chemical free’ in marketing campaigns and on product labels. Such characterization is often incorrectly used to imply — and interpreted to mean — that the product in question is healthy, derived from natural sources, or otherwise free from synthetic components. We have examined and subjected to rudimentary analysis an exhaustive number of such products, including but not limited to lotions and cosmetics, herbal supplements, household cleaners, food items, and beverages. Herein are described all those consumer products, to our knowledge, that are appropriately labelled as ‘Chemical free’.
It really is complete. But don’t worry, it won’t take you long to read it.
Fascinating reading. Very informative, and pretty much confirmed what I had already suspected. Thank you.
Regret to say, though, that this is old news – it hit the blogosphere last year when it came out. I’d suggest sending a copy to the food babe (I refuse to capitalize her “name”), but there may be too many unpronounceable words in it for her.
Interesting indeed. And, you were right P.Z, it didn’t take long to read!
My colleagues in the science department thought the article was well written and didn’t waste words,
I don’t know why, but the article rememded me of a lot of Computer manuals.
Its references list also makes for a few good, swift, clicks. I like the Sciencegeist valiant attempt to come up with a better, marketable, phrase than chemical-free.
I’m still waiting for evidence that organic food is chemical free. I’m sure there are some sugars, proteins, fats, lipids, phosphates, and salts present. In trace amounts, probably a herbicide and insecticide too, manufactured by the plant. All you need to do is to test for them. Life is nothing but chemical factories.
@richardelguru (#5):
[This comment left intentionally blank.]
@8 Richard Smith
[applause]
Reminds me of the shortest computer program, in any language, that, when compiled and run, will print out its own Source Code …..
The only list that I know of that comes close to this one is the one that lists all of those things that the USA is No. 1 at. It has only one entry : military expenditure.
You mean to say the canisters I buy which claim to contain 100% vacuum are actually full of chemicals?
You just can’t trust anyone these days. Anyone know where I can get proper chemical-free vacuum?
NoR@7: “Life is nothing but chemical factories.”
I believe you meant to say, “merely molecules in motion.”
Unless they’re being sold as a health product, they wouldn’t be covered by the list. And I’ve not yet seen wooists trying to claim that vacuums have health benefits, though I wouldn’t put it past them.
@Jake Harban (#12):
Of course, it’s practically impossible to create a 100% pure vacuum anyway. What we need is some sort of device that could remove every last atom from within a contained volume. Needs a catchy name, though; what would you call such an invention that “cleans” a vacuum…?
I think I actually found one chemical-free claim that’s true: http://www.foodqualitynews.com/R-D/Light-based-tech-explored-as-chemical-free-preservation-alternative. Yes, light actually is chemical-free, I’d argue.
Only problem with that article is, the only place it makes the “chemical free” claim is in the webpage title, not in the article itself. And it’s not a product, but a procedure.
Even pure, isolated H2O (in liquid form), filtered of all particulates and ions, would still be classified as “Chemical”?!?
Well cry me a river…
I am amused by gardening seed companies that charge a premium for “organic” seeds. I garden without using pesticides or herbicides, and I make my own compost and do all those other green things, but i am entirely unconcerned about the amount of synthetic pesticide that might be clinging to half a gram of seeds.
I’ve made chemical-free purchases – mostly .epubs and .mp3s.
#12 We looked into it, I’m afraid the canisters themselves are made of chemicals, didn’t make the cut.
The authors were all breatharians, no doubt!
Even pure, isolated H2O (in liquid form), filtered of all particulates and ions, would still be classified as “Chemical”?!?
Potentially explosive, even!
For most of us, the paper was obtained by electrons (and displayed with complex instruments full of chemicals, but we’ll ignore that because too many Big Words are involved). Now, electrons are part of atoms. And molecules. Which are part of chemicals. Ergo, we know the paper itself is part of the Big Chem conspiracy, even before putting on the biohazard suit and reading it.
Since we’re on the subject, here’s another delightful one to keep in your back pocket:
http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf
Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural)
BRUCE N. AMES, MARGIE PROFET, AND LoIs SWIRSKY GOLD
ABSTRACT
The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides
in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.
tl;dr
@23, bff: Even if they were selling parcels of spacetime someone would complain that it contained random exotic particles for a picosecond, now and then. “Freakin gummint has managed to put chemtrails EVERYWHERE to muddy our precious bodily fluids!” – Random Guy In Overalls holding a “Morans” sign.
When I was traveling the US with my friend, we encountered for the first time some (at that time) USA-specific phenomena. I remember how we laughed ourselves silly on bottled water that was labeled as “containing 0% fat”.
I hate how words “natural”, “chemical” and “organic” have been hijacked by idiots and are now used in a way that makes them essentially meaningless. Strychnine is natural and organic and salt is chemical and definitively not organic. It does not make the first one healthy and the second one dangerous.
Whenever I hear someone spoute this nonsense I remind them, that all food is organic, everything consists of chemicals and natural is to eat food raw and sleep under the sky and naked.
I love the Reference #2: the “Chemical Free Chemistry Set”
It made beer come out of my nose!
Reminds me of the assorted papers on the unsuccessful self-treatments for writer’s block — Upper in 1974, Malloy in 1983, Hermann in 1984, Skinner et alia in 1985, Didden et alia in 2007….
Nerd of Redhead, @7, to the best of my knowledge standards for labeling as organic products do not demand being chemical free, only free of some categories of chemicals introduced to agricultural practice after a certain date.
@anat #30:
That’s quite correct. One example is Bordeaux mixture, which is basically copper sulphate solution. It’s sprayed on fruit trees several times a year with the intent of killing fungal spores. Don’t forget to wash your organic apples before eating them (well, that’s sound advice under any circumstances). Do remember to mention Cu2SO4 to your organic-only, “Yah, because, like, chemicals are toxins, aren’t they?” friends.
I wish there was a search facility, so I don’t have to read the whole list to see if my favorite products are in there.
The term organic in the food sense is nothing but a synthetically manufactured definition to assuage the chemophobia of some people.
Ricin is a natural product. Don’t eat it. Natural or organic does not mean harmless.
In Australia “organic” is defined in two documents.
The first is the AS 6000-2009 and you have to pay several hundred $ to read it, one wonders how customers are expected to make conscious choices…
The second is this and, besides homeopathy, it relies on a defining “biodynamic” as “whatever Rudolf Steiner said”, which pretty much equates “organic” to quackery.
Waitin for bottled water labeled “Gluten free”. 3.. 2… 1…
Ricin’s toxin domain is very closely related to the Bt toxin domains we use in transgenic pesticides. It’s neat how a similar protein structure can have such a wide range of targets. Don’t tell the anti-GMO people, though. Their heads would explode.