Chemophobia: Origins and Legislated Existence

The origins of this post, at least, and the ones I have planned to follow on, stem in the recent decision by a court to fine the ever-livin' daylights out of a company based not on science, but the science illiteracy of a judge and jury, and the politicization of science. I'm speaking, of course, of the ruling that accused Roundup of being a cancer-causing substance, in spite of repeated studies that have shown no such thing. Science says it isn't. The legal system says it is. Who is telling the truth, here? I've touched before on the origins of chemophobia (the irrational fear of chemicals) back in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Given my chosen career, it's inevitable that I keep running up against it, hard, in social media encounters and in the mass media. The truth is that much of the public is woefully illiterate when it comes to science, and some of the media is willfully sensationalist and misleading about science and chemicals. I get why: it pays the bills for them. But the result of their campaigns against science is doing damage to the human race not only in developed countries, but trickling down into a flood of crap on developing countries who can't afford to fight it. Here's the thing: I am not opposed, nor are other scientists, to rational and evidence-based restrictions on the use (or over-use) of dangerous substances. What we find ridiculous and outrageous is the fear-mongering against stuff that is generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Finally, there is starting to be some push back against the chemophobia - the FDA recently censured the nonsensical California, for their statements (not based in real science) that coffee causes cancer. I'm hoping that we will see more of that in the coming years. Surely we can find some balance in life? But perhaps not. It has been 60 years today since the passage of the so-called Delaney Clause, after all. In that law, any synthetic ingredient (which, by the way, included substances that originated naturally but were synthesized in labs for more consistent safer mass production) that could be shown to cause cancer in rats had to be banned.  "[The] FDA immediately had a problem on their hands. They determined that the herbicide aminotriazole (C2H4N4) could create a thyroid issue which might cause cancer in rats. And then it was detected in some cranberry shipments. Now, scientists knew that rats are not little people, animal studies can only exclude causes of cancer and never show them, and they knew that the dose it took to create the thyroid issue that might create cancer in a rodent was equivalent to 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for the entire lifetime of the animal but the Delaney Clause did not distinguish between hazard and risk. To the law, one cranberry was equal to 15,000 pounds. A trace amount of a chemical was the same as a quantity equal to five orders of magnitude." You should absolutely take a look at this Holiday Menu, created in response to the absurdity of the above cranberry ban. The chemicals listed are all natural, and all have been shown to cause cancer in rats... At VERY high doses. Much higher than any human could actually consume through eating actual food containing trace amounts of the substances. The Delaney Clause is no longer law - it was replaced in 1996 - but the ripples it caused are still rocking boats and influencing the waves of chemophobia that come crashing down in unexpected places. Like the RoundUp jury, and the anti-vaxx movement, the rejection of Golden Rice, and many others that do harm to the innocent by denying them what science has determined to be healthful. Do carcinogens exist? indubitably. However, the dosage matters. Many substances classified as cancer-causing are only 'probably' going to cause cancer. Others merely increase the risk after high and prolonged exposure. You can't simply look at this list and say that any of those things are going to cause cancer if you encounter them in trace amounts, rarely, or not at all.

The coffee infographic offers a good look at the groups used to categorize carcinogenic agents.

In an era when it's big money to lobby for cancer - at least, to say that something causes cancer, whether it does or not - and chemophobia, it's little surprise to find headlines like this one from CNN. And after 60 years of this being acceptable behavior, to the delight of lawyers and lobbyists, we might not be able to reach a point where we can put a stop to the most nonsensical claims. But at least, I can try in my small way to elevate science literacy and shine a light on the truth of the matter when it comes to chemophobia. Chemicals surround us, in everything we do, in everything we are, for that matter. Chemicals make up every substance. The division between synthetic and natural is artificial. There is risk in everything, and we cannot lower it to zero, no matter how hard we try.