Archive for November, 2009

The Bad Thing: Unnatural chemicals

Friday, November 6th, 2009

I nominate “chemical” as one of the most misused terms of the decade. I’d also like to nominate its too-frequent companion “natural”, often wrongly used as counterpoint. This sort of abuse of the word “chemicals” is so prevalent that Michael has dubbed it The Bad Thing.

Everything on the periodic table of elements is a chemical. Those elements combine to form other chemicals. Everything you’ve ever experienced is the product of chemicals. You and I are made of chemicals. Even an empty box contains chemicals, primarily nitrogen and oxygen. Without chemicals to eat, drink and breathe, all life on the the planet would die very quickly.

If a product claims not to contain chemicals, it is either lying or comically ignorant. Either way, it’s a practice to avoid condoning through commerce.

When I have this conversation in real life, people often respond with something along the lines of, “Not that kind of chemical, you know, the kind made in a lab”. No, I don’t know. I speculate that the concept of chemicals as unnatural rests on the idea that a thing can be processed to a point where what is good and wholesome in it gets destroyed. It ceases to be natural and becomes chemicals. Although I doubt that this position is backed by sound science, I am curious where the cutoff is.

When I look at a loaf of bread, I don’t see wheat. I don’t really even know how a grass becomes a loaf of bread. Does that mean bread is “unnatural” or does it mean I’m ignorant about how food is processed? How about The Mighty Twinkie, with its alleged 50-year shelf life? Is that unnatural? As far as I can tell, it’s made much the same way as bread: you get some grasses, do some stuff to turn it in to flour, mix the flour with some sugar cane bits and some other stuff, then cook it somehow, and you have a food whose component parts are unrecognizable. I don’t see why one is more natural or chemical than the other. Is it because one involves so many more steps than the other? In that case, is taking a roundabout route unnatural? Phone cards can add many steps to making a phone call, are calls placed with calling cards more chemical than calls that are simply dialed?

I’m honestly curious: if you’ve ever committed The Bad Thing, or stand by The Bad Thing as a reasonable use of language, I’d like to know how H2O is good chemicals whereas the stuff of Twinkies is bad chemicals.

A word on book reviews

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

I’m drafting some book reviews, and I wanted to make some comments here so I don’t have to repeat them in every single review:

The vast majority of books I read I have mixed views on. A book I liked all the way through would probably be useless to me as it wouldn’t give me anything to think about.

As I write reviews, I try to consider, however unlikely, the possibility that the author will read this review. I would do a disservice to all involved if I failed to discuss the things I disliked about a book because those are also usually the things I find most interesting. It is not my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings. I hope it will always be obvious that any criticisms I may have of the book, and potentially the author, are not taken as a form of disrespect.

Also, not that I expect there will be any doubt given how vocal I’ve been on the subject of advertising, but for the record, none of these posts are sponsored or otherwise requested by the publisher or anyone else; I do not receive any form of compensation. The vast majority of books reviewed are checked out from the library after I read about them on the internet.

If any excerpts contain typos or other errors, please assume those are transcription errors on my part, not reflective of the author or editor.

Review: Micro Eco Farming

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

I recently checked out Micro Eco-Farming by Barbara Berst Adams from the library. Although I liked it overall, the following review is not going to give that impression. There were a few passages that really got under my skin and I’m going to spend the majority of this post making fun of them. I want to make it clear, before I focus exclusively on the mockably negative, that it had quite a bit of interesting things to say and I’m glad I read it.

I think I was looking for this book to be a little how-to book, but it did show how little land you need to constitute an mirco eco farm (most farms it profiled were about a half acre) and give general strategies for how a tiny little farm can compete against much larger farms (greater flexibility).

Unfortunately, the number of dubious claims made it a less-than attractive starting point for further research. The most comical appears on page 75:

Dr. Norm Shealy, M.D., a world-famous neurosurgeon who gave up that practice for holistic medicine, states that every known illness is associated with a magnesium deficiency. And magnesium, like all the others, works in conjunction and must have its counterparts beyond its commonly known calcium relationship. When plants then get their supply of magnesium and pass it on to animal and humans in a form we can digest and assimilate, health can be restored.

It’s possible illness has a more specific meaning than the one I have in mind, which I as a layperson consider an umbrella term for any disease, syndrome, infection or other ailment. That possibility not withstanding, I find it very hard to believe that human health is so simple that all ailments stem from the lack of one nutrient. Especially when one can fatally overdose on it – an ailment I can be reasonably certain isn’t caused by magnesium deficiency.

Earlier in the book, page 62, it actually managed to made me angry:

Revenue comes for farms and riches that find humans healing from their interaction with tamed horses, llamas, bunnies, and other creatures. “Our ranch is really profitable,” said a manager of a children’s horse farm, “Parents tell me they’re glad to support our farm instead of spending money on drug and alcohol rehabilitation for their kids.”

I found the ignorance regarding substance abuse and its treatment amazing and offensive until I realized: why should they pay for rehab when parents can just give their addicted kids magnesium supplements and health can be restored? I’m going to stop by an oncology ward and spread the good news. Then I’ll stop by a hospice with my newly cancer-free friends and we’ll cure those people with magnesium. Then we’ll form a gang and take over the world by controlling the planet’s magnesium supply.

The only way the above passage makes any sense at is by assuming author and farm owner and parents mean that by exposing their children to the natural world, the children will develop a sense of belonging in the natural universe such that they won’t develop substance abuse problems, and the parents won’t have to shell out for rehab later. Unfortunately this passage doesn’t give any indication that it ought to be interpreted that way.

On page 135, the author writes:

It’s been said that the greatest scientist of all is the earth.

This answers some questions. Apparently our author doesn’t know what a scientist is. The earth, being a lovely planet but not a conscious being, is unable to formulate a hypothesis, one of the primary steps in the scientific method.

As I said earlier, it was overall an interesting book, and it’s certainly not my intention to hurt the author’s feelings by only selecting passages that contrasted sharply with my world view. I appreciate that she and the people she interviewed took the time to share their lives and experiences with the world at large.