5 ms·

Carrageenan is on a lot of labels, and I'm often asked, 'What is that chemical?' It's not a chemical. It's seaweed! Actually, it is very much a chemical. All f

Carrageenan is on a lot of labels, and I'm often asked, 'What is that chemical?' It's not a chemical. It's seaweed! Actually, it is very much a chemical. All food is chemicals. It's just perverted advertising that convinced the masses that chemical = "something bad". For more sad laughter on this topic, the Royal Society of Chemistry's blog has a category for "chemical free" living: http://prospect.rsc.org/blogs/rsc/tag/100-chemical-free/ http://prospect.rsc.org/blogs/rsc/tag/100-chemical-free/ They even announced a £1 million bounty for anyone who can find a chemical-free cosmetic: http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2010/CTPA100ChemicalFree.asp http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2010/CTPA100Ch...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mast 16y ago
Absolutely. All food is made up of component chemicals. Still, I think people need to be more aware of the food they are eating. Have you ever had a look at the ingredients in non-dairy creamer: http://foodconstrued.com/2011/01/cream-in-my-coffee/ http://foodconstrued.com/2011/01/cream-in-my-coffee/
- pierrefar 16y ago
  I agree completely that we need to be aware of what we eat. My concern is that we're using really bad terminology to scare people. A much better word would be "artificial" or "synthetic" additive IMHO.
  - gxti 16y ago
    Which would be only marginally more specific. Humans have been eating "artificial", "synthetic" foods for thousands of years, and all of these things are made from "natural" ingredients because matter can't be conjured from thin air. Can you really come up with a test to distinguish between a just-invented stabilizing agent with unknown long-term effects on health and, say, flour?
jseifer 16y ago
Carrageenan also causes all sorts of cancer in rats - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T54-4HDY8WJ-W&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1596335331&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e64a2b51d1c5a596aabfa457e4e7ec29&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
- pierrefar 16y ago
  Interesting. I haven't heard about that. Wikipedia has a nice simple overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Health_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Health_concerns
ced 16y ago
Actually, it is very much a chemical. All food is chemicals. That's literally true, but not the intended meaning. Chemical has become a synonym for "man-made". It's a useful distinction. If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the latter. True, scientific studies can show that chemical X is harmless, but.... only if the study was done over a very long time. Only if it was done properly. Only if the scientists didn't receive their financing from BigCo. It's perfectly reasonable to be wary of "chemicals", heuristically. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not one of these people living in mistrust of chemicals. But I understand where they're coming from, especially if they have a poor grasp of science. A reasonable move for Kasparov (e.g.: sacrificing his queen for tactical advantage) might be a terrible move for me in the same situation.
- anamax 16y ago
  > If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" [man-made] molecule, or 100g of a naturally occurring molecule, you would be much better off with the latter. How about some supporting evidence? (I assume that you're excluding man-made molecules which are also found in nature, but if you're not, please explain where you're putting them and why.)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- pierrefar 16y ago
  I think there are two parts to what you're saying: "chemical" molecules are, as I said elsewhere in this thread, are better described as artificial or synthetic. We agree on that, but I disagree that it's reasonable to be wary of chemicals - it's a triumph of rubbish marketing. The other part is the assumption that "natural" molcules are inherently better. There is no difference between naturally-occuring vitamin C vs synthetic vitamin C. Also, there are lots of naturally-occuring molcules you don't want in you.
  - ced 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mast 16y ago

Absolutely. All food is made up of component chemicals. Still, I think people need to be more aware of the food they are eating. Have you ever had a look at the ingredients in non-dairy creamer: http://foodconstrued.com/2011/01/cream-in-my-coffee/ http://foodconstrued.com/2011/01/cream-in-my-coffee/

pierrefar 16y ago
I agree completely that we need to be aware of what we eat. My concern is that we're using really bad terminology to scare people. A much better word would be "artificial" or "synthetic" additive IMHO.
- gxti 16y ago
  Which would be only marginally more specific. Humans have been eating "artificial", "synthetic" foods for thousands of years, and all of these things are made from "natural" ingredients because matter can't be conjured from thin air. Can you really come up with a test to distinguish between a just-invented stabilizing agent with unknown long-term effects on health and, say, flour?

jseifer 16y ago

Carrageenan also causes all sorts of cancer in rats - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T54-4HDY8WJ-W&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1596335331&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e64a2b51d1c5a596aabfa457e4e7ec29&searchtype=a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

pierrefar 16y ago
Interesting. I haven't heard about that. Wikipedia has a nice simple overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Health_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrageenan#Health_concerns

ced 16y ago

Actually, it is very much a chemical. All food is chemicals. That's literally true, but not the intended meaning. Chemical has become a synonym for "man-made". It's a useful distinction. If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the latter. True, scientific studies can show that chemical X is harmless, but.... only if the study was done over a very long time. Only if it was done properly. Only if the scientists didn't receive their financing from BigCo. It's perfectly reasonable to be wary of "chemicals", heuristically. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not one of these people living in mistrust of chemicals. But I understand where they're coming from, especially if they have a poor grasp of science. A reasonable move for Kasparov (e.g.: sacrificing his queen for tactical advantage) might be a terrible move for me in the same situation.

anamax 16y ago
> If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" [man-made] molecule, or 100g of a naturally occurring molecule, you would be much better off with the latter. How about some supporting evidence? (I assume that you're excluding man-made molecules which are also found in nature, but if you're not, please explain where you're putting them and why.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
pierrefar 16y ago
I think there are two parts to what you're saying: "chemical" molecules are, as I said elsewhere in this thread, are better described as artificial or synthetic. We agree on that, but I disagree that it's reasonable to be wary of chemicals - it's a triumph of rubbish marketing. The other part is the assumption that "natural" molcules are inherently better. There is no difference between naturally-occuring vitamin C vs synthetic vitamin C. Also, there are lots of naturally-occuring molcules you don't want in you.
- ced 16y ago