I'm a biology major, and I've taken several chemistry classes such as biochemistry and orgranic chemistry as well as classes like nutrition. I have a good sense of "chemistry language," and I also have a good idea of the chemicals in various foods. And I don't mean the synthetic ones, I mean the basic organic molecules that make up a chunk of chicken or a piece of apple.

I have often taken the "if you can't pronounce the ingredients, avoid it" rule with a grain of salt. If the "ingredients" listed in an organically grown tomato were specifically listed, people would be terrified to eat it. Would you eat something with "β-fructofuranosidase, polyphenol oxidase, and indole-3-acetic acid" would you eat it? Not to mention deoxyribonucleic acid These are all chemicals. Many of them can be fabricated identically in the lab. And if it was made in the lab or made in the tomato, it makes no difference to the properties of the chemical, and thus the effects on your body.

Take a look at this article --> http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt...825/story.html

It basically points out that "chemical free" is just a catchy advertising trick. NOTHING is chemical free because EVERYTHING is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Proteins, carbohydrates, fats, etc are all chemicals and they all have scary scientific names that we have been told to avoid. The "chemical free" scheme just plays on the fact that it's trendy to eat "whole" foods. People want to read "real" ingredients like chicken, tomatoes, milk, etc.

I dunno, I definitely understand the benefits of minimizing processed foods in a diet. I make it a point to shop on the outside of the grocery store and limit heavily processed foods. However, keep in mind that these chemicals are not necessarily evil. The vast majority are organic molecules that your body is perfectly capable of digesting and using no matter where it came from. Breaking a carbon-hydrogen bond is the same process in a molecule from an organic tomato and a labratory fabricated ingredient.

The problem with processed foods is not (mostly) what is IN them, it is what is NOT in them.

Thanks for stating this so well. I once got into quite a "discussion" with someone who was sure "organic" vitamins were healthier. Now we didn't get into the side discussion of regulation of products marketed as vitamins. I was trying to get across that "Vitamin C" is a specific chemical structure, regardless of how it's created, whether in a plant or in a test tube.

Biologist here.

Additives that are not naturally occurring compounds in the foods might be problematic. These are things like sodium nitrite and nitrate, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and other preservatives. Also, certain pesticides leave a residue that can't just be washed off with water. The FDA sets maximums for many pesticide residues, but some people think that they tend to accumulate in the body and that therefore there is no truly safe exposure.

I agree that everything is chemicals. What else would things be? but I try to buy organic foods when I can, not because I'm scared of chemicals, but because I think organic is better for the Earth. Organic farming methods and processes are closer to how the natural world works.

That said, I also eat Lean Cuisines and other foods that are processed. I have to make a trade-off sometimes for my own convenience.

Jay

Oh, and with regard to whether synthetic chemicals are "that bad"--it depends on the chemical. Synthetic Vitamin E, for example, contains both D and L forms (a chemical fine point--they are mirror images of each other). However, our bodies can only use the D form. So why would you buy a "mixed" vitamin E?

Jay

I have a bachelor's degree in behavioral psychology and a master's degree in psychology, and both degrees required a fair amount of chemistry, biochemestry, and biology coursework (both in the form of dedicated classes like human biology and also woven into the psychology classes themselves).

I've done some research on food addtives, and quite frankly, I'm a lot more concerned with what is taken out of our food, than what is added in.

I CAN pronounce almost everything on a nutrition label (doesn't mean I want to eat it all). If I don't know what something is, I look it up. Usually, I've found that the preservatives and additives aren't very frightening to me.

I am bugged though by unnecessary ingredients. I know people like beverages to be brightly colored, but I wish more no-color, or less-colored options were available. I also hate the "nutriceutical" trend in which very doubtful health claims are made or implied. The other day I was making some Cherry Pomegranate Crystal Light. I love the flavor, but two things I hate.

1. It's labeled "Crystal Light Immunity" as if it were a health food, likely to imprve immunity. I'm not afraid of the aspartame, but I'd be delusional to think that a powdered drink mix could boost my immunity. There's a disclaimer (in fine print, of course) that the product isn't designed to treat or aid in any health benefits - so why can it advertise by implication in large print as if it does?

2. The amount and intensity of food coloring used. I got some of the powder on my hands when mixing, and stained my finger tips dark red. It took days for the stain to fade. Even the drinking the beverage can leave stains on my tongue and lips, and if it gets on clothing, it doesn't come out.


Most people aren't interested in studying food chemistry, so they use guidelines that they think are helpful more often than they are not. "Don't eat what you can't pronounce," is one of those. I can pronounce most chemical compound ingredients quite well, but was mispronouncing quinoa for months before I learned it was pronounced Keenwah, so pronunciation really isn't a very helpful guideline for me.

"Don't eat food you don't understand," might be a better maxim, but that could also be misinterpreted and misapplied.


It reminds me of the joke "To every rule there is an exception, including this one."