In Which I Address Food-Related Science Quackery

[WARNING: Rant Mode ON. Maximum verbosity enabled.]

I realize that what I'm about to post probably won't make a bit of difference to anyone.  The people who, in my humble opinion, would benefit most from reading this, almost certainly won't make it to the end; and even if they do, it won't change their minds. They 'know' what they 'know', and any words from a science shill like me will only serve to prove to them that they were right all along. Nevertheless, I'll say it.  As Satai Dukhat once said, "When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs to be."

So here we go.


#1: For The Love Of All That Is Good And Holy, Stop Saying "Chemical Free"

The phrase "chemical free" is a lie, pure and simple. There is no such thing.

The reason there is no such thing is that everything, literally everything we see and touch and eat and know, is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Oxygen is a chemical. High fructose corn syrup and Splenda© are chemicals, of course, but so is pure cane sugar, and every other sweetener you can name. Sodium benzoate, a commonly used preservative, is a chemical, but so is salt (including sea salt and Kosher salt), and it's been used as a preservative for millennia. Vitamins, minerals, proteins, chamomile, oil of peppermint, eucalyptus extract, David Avocado Wolfe's hair conditioner--they're all chemicals.

The fact is that all matter on Earth is composed of chemicals. Period. The only matter of which I'm aware that might reasonably not be called 'chemicals' is Dark Matter and neutron star matter. And nobody currently living on Earth is ever going to have to worry about those things--or if they do, it'll just be the one time.

So stop telling everyone that your food or your cosmetics or your sunscreen is 'chemical free'. It's just not true. And claiming to be 'chemical free' is not something to be proud of--it identifies you as someone lacking information, and an easy mark for hucksters.


#2: Genetically Modified Organisms Are Not 'Frankenfoods'

For thousands of years, human beings have engaged in the practice of genetically modifying organisms to make them serve our own needs. For most of this time, this was done by selective breeding. For example, our ancestors chose those plants and animals that had characteristics we liked and bred them with each other to reinforce those characteristics. Over the course of generations and centuries, we turned these naturally-existing organisms into the kinds of organisms that we waned them to be. This process of genetic modification is now known as 'domestication'.

Today, our scientific knowledge and technological expertise allows us to accomplish the same goals, but in a drastically reduced period of time. Now that we know about genes and DNA--discoveries made only in the last couple of centuries--we can alter an organism's genetic code to reinforce desirable characteristics (high yield, resistance to disease, etc.) directly.

So please don't waste your time (or mine) telling me about the benefits of non-GMO corn or non-GMO beef or non-GMO chick peas.  Because they don't really exist. The fact is, all of these foods--and, in fact, all food from domesticated sources--is GMO food, and has been for centuries.

"But wait," I hear you cry. "Genetic engineering and selective breeding aren't the same thing!" You're right, of course. Genetic engineering is much more precise and reliable--and much more heavily regulated--than traditional crossbreeding methods.

"But wait," I hear you cry again. "We don't always know what genetic modification of an organism will do!" Well, that's true. But we don't always know what traditional crossbreeding will do, either. The fact is that due to random mutations inherent in the reproductive cycles of all forms of life, crossbreeding is much more likely to produce unexpected results than genetic modification.

"But wait," I hear you cry yet again. "GMO foods aren't safe!" Let me be direct: You don't have any evidence that that's true. I have yet to see a single scientific study published in a recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports the assertion that GMO foods are unsafe at any level. Oh sure, I've seen articles/blog posts by the Food Babe and Natural News decrying the dangers of GMO foods. Those aren't scientific publications. They're marketing sites with an agenda (and related products and accessories!) to sell. Get on the website. Look at their prices. Where does that money go, do you suppose?

Anyway, on the issue of GMO food safety, all I can say is this: Saying that GMO foods are unsafe doesn't make it true. Show me the evidence.  I'll wait.


#3: Organic: I Don't Think That Means What You Think It Means

First, let's get some terminology out of the way. In terms of chemistry, 'organic' means 'containing carbon'. And other than water and a handful of minerals, all food contains carbon.  In other words, all foods are organic foods, scientifically speaking. So as a description of what the foods are actually made of, 'organic' isn't terribly useful.

Now, 'organic' as a marketing term for foods? Well, that's something else entirely. Some food producers use different methods for growing foods, mainly involving which fertilizers and pest control methods they use, in order to appeal to more environmentally-conscious or health-conscious consumers. And that's fine. Foods produced in such a fashion are usually labeled 'Organic', and usually sell for a higher price than non-'organic' items.

But what does this label really mean? Well, as it turns out, not necessarily a lot. Standards for 'organic' food production are not consistent, and they are not always rigorously enforced. And a few unethical producers don't even bother with the process at all; they just market all their food as 'organic' because the profits outweigh the risks of getting caught. Additionally, there's not a lot of evidence that 'organic' foods are nutritionally superior to their mundane (and less costly) counterparts. Research in this area is ongoing, of course.

As a food descriptor, 'organic' is often just a synonym for 'expensive', sadly.


#4: All-Natural Doesn't Necessarily Mean Better

Here's a simple comparison. Cyanide is produced naturally in the pits of stone fruits (peaches, apricots, etc.) and will kill you dead, dead, dead. Medicinal insulin is synthetic (and produced by GMOs, no less!) and saves the lives of millions of people every day. So, which is better, natural or synthetic?

That's actually a trick question. The correct answer is this: It doesn't matter. Not at all. The source of a molecule (the basic unit of a chemical, you know) has nothing whatsoever to do with its properties. The molecule doesn't know or care if it's from natural or synthetic sources. It makes no difference whatsoever.

Now don't get me wrong, I prefer real vanilla extract to the artificial stuff. It tastes better. That's because it has ingredients (chemicals) in it that are not produced by the synthetic process. But the primary molecule found in both real and artificial vanilla is exactly the same, despite the difference in origin.

If you feel better about 'all-natural' foods, cosmetics, and supplements, then good for you. But if you're claiming that the same ingredients derived from synthetic sources are somehow different or inferior, that's just not true.


Okay, that's all I've got for now. Thanks for reading.

[Rant Mode OFF.]