'Natural', 'chemical', and such

[Raphael]

He answered Nee... den Atom koch ich ab ("No... I will boil off the nucular").

Ah yes, the common belief among some people in Germany that "Atom" is some kind of dangerous substance.

[Travis B.]

He answered Nee... den Atom koch ich ab ("No... I will boil off the nucular").

Ah yes, the common belief among some people in Germany that "Atom" is some kind of dangerous substance.

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

[bradrn]

He answered Nee... den Atom koch ich ab ("No... I will boil off the nucular").

Ah yes, the common belief among some people in Germany that "Atom" is some kind of dangerous substance.

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

Let me use this opportinity to link one of my favourite papers: https://blogs-nature-com.simsrad.net.oc ... l-Free.pdf. (Or, rather more scarily, doi:10.1021/ed074p455.)

[Ares Land]

He answered Nee... den Atom koch ich ab ("No... I will boil off the nucular"). Shows that people not having a clue is not just a phenomenon of the social media age.

Was he clueless or sarcastic? It would also work as a pretty witty answer to a not terribly smart question

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

I'll be a bit of a contrarian here. It's an interesting point of semantics: words have varying semantics according to register. It's similar to 'tomato' or 'animal' and in fact we're pretty good at determining register from context. (After all, it's never really ambiguous whether animal includes homo sapiens or not in a given context, and we rarely serve tomatoes for dessert.)

The word "chemical" can also be a pretty convenient shorthand for "the outcome of industrial processes, which I don't entirely trust for reasons too complex to get into here."

[Travis B.]

Ah yes, the common belief among some people in Germany that "Atom" is some kind of dangerous substance.

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

Let me use this opportinity to link one of my favourite papers: https://blogs-nature-com.simsrad.net.oc ... l-Free.pdf. (Or, rather more scarily, doi:10.1021/ed074p455.)

Googling for "chemical-free food" (without quotes) is depressing...

[MacAnDàil]

He answered Nee... den Atom koch ich ab ("No... I will boil off the nucular").

Ah yes, the common belief among some people in Germany that "Atom" is some kind of dangerous substance.

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

'Chemical' in ordinary language doesn't mean the same thing as in scientific language. 'chemical' means 'artificial additives' in normal parlance. As far as I am concerned, complaining about people not wanting chemicals is a bit like saying that people misunderstand astronomy because they the sun is rising.

[Travis B.]

Ah yes, the common belief among some people in Germany that "Atom" is some kind of dangerous substance.

I like how people think that "chemicals" are bad (as if everything wasn't made of them) and that things that are "natural" are good (despite that many toxic substances are natural in origin).

'Chemical' in ordinary language doesn't mean the same thing as in scientific language. 'chemical' means 'artificial additives' in normal parlance. As far as I am concerned, complaining about people not wanting chemicals is a bit like saying that people misunderstand astronomy because they the sun is rising.

That still goes along the lines of assuming that everything "natural" is good, and thus does not avoid the issue.

[MacAnDàil]

Not really, chemically processed food with artificial additives is unhealthy.

[Linguoboy]

Not really, chemically processed food with artificial additives is unhealthy.

1. That's simply not a valid statement as formulated.
2. Can we please move this side discussion to another thread where it's not completely off-topic?

[bradrn]

Not really, chemically processed food with artificial additives is unhealthy.

What counts as 'chemically processed'? How is one supposed to distinguish 'artificial' additives from 'non-artificial' ones? I agree with Linguoboy: this statement makes no sense as currently formulated.

Can we please move this side discussion to another thread where it's not completely off-topic?

Yes please!

[Linguoboy]

Not really, chemically processed food with artificial additives is unhealthy.

What counts as 'chemically processed'? How is one supposed to distinguish 'artificial' additives from 'non-artificial' ones? I agree with Linguoboy: this statement makes no sense as currently formulated.

Lye is a "chemical", isn't it? So traditional Laugebrezeln are "unhealthy" in some fashion that a pukka English bap isn't? Or is it okay if I use "natural" lye harvested from the site of a forest fire instead of making it "artificially"?

[alynnidalar]

I had a very similar thought about nixtamalization, where dried corn is cooked in an alkaline solution. This process has been around for likely thousands of years, but very much is a chemical process involving artificial additives (lye, soda ash, calcium hydroxide produced from limestone, etc.).

(Incidentally, it also considerably improves the nutritional value of the corn (by converting niacin to a form we can readily absorb, as well as picking up other handy minerals from whatever additive is used to nixtamalize it) and reduces toxins produced by molds that are very common in corn. So here's a clear example of a chemically-processed food with artificial additives where it actually makes it more healthy...)

[Linguoboy]

(Incidentally, it also considerably improves the nutritional value of the corn (by converting niacin to a form we can readily absorb, as well as picking up other handy minerals from whatever additive is used to nixtamalize it) and reduces toxins produced by molds that are very common in corn. So here's a clear example of a chemically-processed food with artificial additives where it actually makes it more healthy...)

In fact, when this wasn't done, it caused outbreaks of pellagra, such as the epidemic in the pre-WWII American South which killed an estimated 100,000 people.

[Travis B.]

(Incidentally, it also considerably improves the nutritional value of the corn (by converting niacin to a form we can readily absorb, as well as picking up other handy minerals from whatever additive is used to nixtamalize it) and reduces toxins produced by molds that are very common in corn. So here's a clear example of a chemically-processed food with artificial additives where it actually makes it more healthy...)

In fact, when this wasn't done, it caused outbreaks of pellagra, such as the epidemic in the pre-WWII American South which killed an estimated 100,000 people.

One can say that natural corn is simply unhealthy as a diet based on it without other components will inevitably lead to pellagra, and only artificially processed (i.e. nixtamalized) corn is healthy at all.

[MacAnDàil]

OK that does need rewording and clarification, as you say. I don't think I was referring to anything mentioned. I was referring to heavily processed foods like the last two categories here: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/ ... hould-know Here, it is called ultra-processed food: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritions ... sed-foods/ From that second source: "An association has been suggested between the increasing sales of ultra-processed foods and the rise in obesity. [3]" "It is estimated that ultra-processed foods contribute about 90% of the total calories obtained from added sugars. [4] " "As a general rule, emphasizing unprocessed or minimally processed foods in the daily diet is optimal." "There is evidence showing an association with certain types of food processing and poor health outcomes (especially highly- or ultra-processed foods). This association applies mainly to ultra-processed foods that contain added sugars, excess sodium, and unhealthful fats."
But here (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318630) chemically processed food is taken as a synonym for "ultra-processed food": "However, chemically processed foods, also called ultra-processed foods, tend to be high in sugar, artificial ingredients, refined carbohydrates, and trans fats. Because of this, they are a major contributor to obesity and illness around the world."

[Linguoboy]

From reading those citations, it sounds like the most harmful additives are, in fact, quite natural: sugars and transfats. Moreover, these additives appear to do ore harm than the mere fact that chemicals were used in processing. It just so happens that more processing tends to correlated with more additives. Even the degree of processing doesn't seem to be necessarily a great indicator of the healthiness. In the hierarchy, pre-made meals are classed with those foods which receive the highest degree of processing. But it's perfectly possible to make meals in advance without making them harmful and unhealthy; folks do it all the time at home.

[Travis B.]

From reading those citations, it sounds like the most harmful additives are, in fact, quite natural: sugars and transfats. Moreover, these additives appear to do ore harm than the mere fact that chemicals were used in processing. It just so happens that more processing tends to correlated with more additives. Even the degree of processing doesn't seem to be necessarily a great indicator of the healthiness. In the hierarchy, pre-made meals are classed with those foods which receive the highest degree of processing. But it's perfectly possible to make meals in advance without making them harmful and unhealthy; folks do it all the time at home.

Properly, most trans fats put in food are the result of hydrogenation of unsaturated fats, as the main naturally occurring trans fats are a small proportion of the fats derived from ruminant meat or milk which are generated by the action of bacteria in the guts of said ruminants.

Similarly, here in the US a major source of sugars in the diet is high fructose corn syrup, which is generated through the use of acids and artificially introduced enzymes to break cornstarch down into fructose and glucose.

[zompist]

Even the degree of processing doesn't seem to be necessarily a great indicator of the healthiness.

At least some studies actually do correlate processing with unhealthiness:

If you take, for example, whole oats and ground oats, they have identical back-of-the-pack labelling and the same NOVA classification. When people are fed whole oats you get a very blunted blood sugar, blood glucose response. When they’re fed finely ground oats you get this massive peak in glucose, then a dip, an increase in hunger, and this increase in inflammation. This is because processed food breaks down the food structure, breaks down what we call the ‘food matrix’. And you get totally different effects on inflammation as a result of the structure of the food.

The ultra-processed nature of modern food generally means that the complex structure of the plant and animal cells is destroyed, turning it into a nutritionally empty mush that our body can process abnormally rapidly.

From the article, it's not known for sure why breaking down food structure should be bad; one idea, pursued by Dr Berry, is that it triggers an inflammatory response.

(And of course the usual caveat about food science news: things always over-simplify on the journey from the lab to the newsroom to the consumer. We probably shouldn't demonize "processing" per se.)

[Linguoboy]

(And of course the usual caveat about food science news: things always over-simplify on the journey from the lab to the newsroom to the consumer. We probably shouldn't demonize "processing" per se.)

That, and 180° reversals are depressingly common. I was raised to be ultravigilant about fats (especially animal fats) and encouraged to fill up on cheap balloon bread with cinnamon sugar, and now the conventional wisdom is that sugars and simple carbs are far worse for you than animal fats. Just last night I had to break it to a friend recovering from food poisoning that the BRAT diet is no longer recommended by physicians as there's very little evidence that it works.

That's not to say that I expect a bombshell report tomorrow saying that we'd all be healthier if we dumped our kombucha and went back to drinking real Coca-Cola, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that something we currently think of as fairly innocuous turned out to be much worse than previously thought and something touted as beneficial turned out to out to have little positive effect.

[MacAnDàil]

But it's perfectly possible to make meals in advance without making them harmful and unhealthy; folks do it all the time at home.

Of course there's a difference between making meals for tomorrow and making packaged ready meals for people in several years on the other side of world. And that's without getting into the worst junk food.