I really think this is a semantic issue: the laity uses a word differently than the scientific community. Ain’t the first time it’s happened. Some folks may think that some natural substances are imbued with some Earth-mother-like-love or whatever instead of realizing that a formaldehyde molecule is a formaldehyde molecule, whether or not it comes from an apple or from some giant industrial tank*. But I don’t think just saying “everything is a chemical” will necessarily elicit the change in mind we want in folks (since then one simply says “well natural chemicals are good, man-made ones are bad”).

I think Derek Lowe pretty much got the right approach here: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/07/02/all_natural_and_chemical_free.php

*There may be a question about secondary products in the mixture, although that’s why we classify things as food/medical grade and others as not…

tcmJoe – in my experience, a worringyly large number of people appear NOT to understand that all things are chemicals (“well, YOUR body may be full of chemicals, but MINE certainly isn’t” being a typical response!). The point about making any distinction between natural and synthetic is that there is no relevance to the toxicty on that basis alone. Natural materials are used with little consideration of their potential toxicity (certainly in the personal care industry), purely in the basis that they are “natural”. The Environmental Working Group (emphasis on the “mental”!) fall into this trap time after time with their “Skin Deep” database (which is fundamentally flawed in any case), and far too many people fall for this nonsense.

The “natural” or “organic” products themselves may be unsafe (although less likely in foods, I will concede). There should be equal concern over the safety of all substances, both synthetic and “natural”, until there are sufficient data to support their use.

Another issue is the term “natural”. This is often applied to substances that are actually “derived from nature”. If something is “derived from nature” but doesn’t freely exist in nature, it is not natural.

I actually was not the biggest fan of the “Chemical Free” paper, because most people will realize that all things are technically “chemicals”, but there’s an implicit “synthetic” when people talk about food/items being chemical-free.

I think the greater issue at hand is pointing out that using “all natural” or “organic” products can easily expose you to plenty of hazardous products. be they “organic” pesticides that are far more toxic than the synthetic ones we use or a heady dose of Listeria in some unpasteurized milk.

How present or not the toxicological risk of new materials is a valid question (everyone remember those BPA Nalgene bottles we used to have 6 years ago?). The time spent on evaluating the safety of all new materials can be immense (and often dealing with incomplete information) so a healthy skepticism towards new materials/additives could be warranted, though I’m not too worried about what’s commonly available.

http://blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/files/2014/06/nchem_-Chemical-Free.pdf

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/05/natural-is-safe-and-synthetic-is-dangerous-truth-is-safe-and-myths-are-dangerous/

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/12/if-you-cant-pronounce-it/

http://personalcaretruth.com/2012/06/100-natural-almost-100-certainly-not/