I... guess we disagree? I don't see what you're reading into the article, at all. As I read it he's clearly referring to long-named, psychoactive substances wit

I... guess we disagree? I don't see what you're reading into the article, at all. As I read it he's clearly referring to long-named, psychoactive substances with every single use of "chemical". Anyway, not much point in arguing about that. Your bringing up tryptophan is the classic example of what I'm talking about. Someone notices that turkey has tryptophan in it, tryptophan is psychoactive on paper, and suddenly the reason eating a big dinner makes you sleepy is because it's drugged. (Never mind that turkey doesn't have significantly more tryptophan than any other meat.) The point is, as you note, there isn't a binary distinction. The difference is in dosage— is the amount of this thing that you actually encounter in your life enough to cause noticeable effects? If not, it may as well be inert. And nutmeg is a good example: the one chemical that the article does provide dosing on, and it turns out that it's basically impossible to get an actual psychoactive effect from it. I wonder what information about the actual concentrations of these "psychoactive chemicals" would reveal?