When was the last time you bought a box of electrons? How about a can of plasma or a case of quarks? As charming as that would be, it sounds strange for a reason: it does not make any sense. And yet, how peculiar is it that there are a number of “chemical-free” products in the market.
This evidently is a misnomer employed by deceptive marketers, hence, a recent push by chemists to ban this practice. Some might argue that this is a harmless substitution for meaningful distinctions such as “toxin-free,” “preservative-free” or the dubiously valid “synthetic-chemical free.” The fact remains, however, that this is not the case, and by allowing manufacturers to sell products with false accreditation, this fosters scientific illiteracy, confusion and allows for serious dangers to be underemphasized.
Perhaps, the majority of people do not know the exact difference between chemicals, toxins and preservatives, or between organic, non-synthetic and natural chemicals. However, to use the terms willy-nilly not only increases the confusion and ignorance, but actually encourages it. It leads people, who might otherwise have an idea of what is in these products, to receive blurred notions, and so the health- and environment-conscious consumer is left trying to decipher which product is the “greenest.” Instead of using buzz-words, which manufacturers know consumers don’t actually understand, product labels should explain exactly what is it about them that make it good for the consumer or planet. One way to start this movement is to forbid the use of meaningless terms which can be applied to any product equally and invalidly, such as “chemical-free.”
The inherent danger in this practice is the creation of a lot of noise which drowns out serious threats. When people are bombarded with various terms, all of which sound vaguely “green,” it becomes inevitable to make concessions and not buy products that are “non-synthetic,” “chemical-free” or “HFCS-free.” The problem is that some things, such as the lack of high-fructose corn syrup, are actually legitimate. Several studies, endorsed by The American Medical Association, have linked high-fructose corn syrup to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other serious health problems. Yet, those who lobby for HFCS are able to take advantage of the flood of pseudo-significant labels and concerns with an ad campaign in which one person says to another “My hairdresser says high-fructose corn syrup is bad for you,” and gets the reply, “Is your hairdresser a doctor?” In a world in which scientific honesty was taken seriously, everyday consumers would be able to tell the difference between safe and unsafe products and being a conscious consumer wouldn’t be so arduous a task.
Maybe it’s a trivial fight, but the use of terms like “chemical-free” are just part of a bigger plague in which nonsense like homeopathy and power balance wristbands hide behind vaguely scientific-sounding terms and prey on an unwitting public. Demanding legitimacy in the market is a step in the right direction in the interest of empowering the consumer.
Leave a Reply