alt Hacker NewsOf course this is technically correct (almost a cliche really), but I think we all realize that "chemicals" in this context means "novel untested synthetic chemicals." That's a mouthful, so we use shorthand.
Replies
> so we use shorthand
Which is fine until the shorthand breaks containment, the nuance is lost, and the masses generalize it far beyond what was originally intended.
No, it just means harmful chemicals. We're talking about perfumes. Plenty of this stuff has been well-tested and it's toxic, a lot of it is probably toxic if you inhale it in aerosolized/partially burnt form.
Of course, but many people don't. I wouldn't bother if it was just pedantry. It's a discussion I've had many times and it's actually hard to make some people understand that "chemicals" doesn't just mean "synthetic dangerous things made in a lab", or that some labels have ingredients that are difficult to pronounce and unrecognizable that are still safe and natural.
There are a lot of these people. It's the same kind of people who buy their dogs "Taste of the Wild" grain free high-protein dog food because it sounds natural and therefore better than WSAVA-approved dog food, against the advice of any seasoned veterinarian.
I would take it down a notch.
It is more about just synthesized at lab not „novel untested”.
Like you can have bread from four, water, yeast that no one would call „chemicals” - even though yeast nowadays is highly engineered.
Exactly. I assumed synthetic was understood.
It’s not the end of the world, but it’s still bad. It’s the kind of woolly definition that lets charlatans get away with blatant lies in advertising.