In today’s world of social media experts, the words “clean” and “natural” and “organic” have taken root to create anxiety and a fear of chemicals. Chemophobia can be defined as the irrational or exaggerated fear of chemical substances. It influences the food we buy, the medicines we take, the building products we use and the policies we vote for.
Ok, we live in a developed society and pay attention to environmental toxins but chemophobia ignores science. It replaces carefully studied toxicology with a simplified, black and white worldview: natural and organic are good, and synthetic is evil.
The appeal of nature is basic for chemophobia. The idea is that if a substance is found in the wild, it is inherently safer for humans. If a substance is the product of industrial synthesis, it is viewed as most likely dangerous.
This ignores the reality that everything and I mean everything is made of chemicals. For instance, formaldehyde is a notorious “chemical bogeyman” often cited in concerns about plywood manufacture, furniture and vaccines. BUT it is crucial for a series of biochemical reactions used to create DNA, amino acids, and other molecules that your body needs. Organic pears can contain between 40 and 60 milligrams of formaldehyde in each kilogram.
The Botulinum toxin, produced by soil bacteria, is the most acutely lethal substance known to science, far outpacing the toxicity of most synthetic pesticides.
The problem is not the chemicals (remember everything is made of chemicals) the problem is that we don’t focus on the dose! In the 16th century, the physician Paracelsus famously noted, “The dose makes the poison” This is a basic law of toxicology.
Today, our ability to analyse for a chemical has gone way past our ability to interpret the results. We can now identify molecules in parts per trillion or the equivalent of a single grain of sugar in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. To a chemophobe, just finding a substance is equated with danger, regardless of whether the concentration is thousands of times below the level required to trigger a problem. Anyone who dumps on chemicals without mentioning dosage is either ignorant (as in doesn’t know the facts) or deliberately misleading.
Chemophobia is often applied to the materials used in construction, especially in the world of timber preservation. Wood, we proudly (and correctly) announce to the world is the ultimate “natural” material. However, to make a viable, long-lasting construction material, preservation must be considered.
For decades, the wood protection industry has relied on a range of compounds to extend timber life in service. However, as public awareness of industrial processes grew, so did the suspicion. Even when modern treatments use minerals naturally found in the earth’s crust, they are often labelled as “harsh industrial additives.”
This “trust deficit” has created a push for “chemical-free” timber. This leads many to seek out alternative processes like thermal modification which uses heat to change the wood’s cellular structure or simply opting for untreated “heartwood.” While these methods have their place, they often lack the robust protection needed for wood used in applications involving high pressure from decay and termites. When fear overrides the technical requirements of a project, the results can lead to failure.
Chemophobia often leads to worse environmental outcomes.
In the construction industry, if a fence or deck or cladding or fascia is left untreated because of a fear of chemicals, its lifespan may be cut from say 40 years down to less than 10. This means you must cut down more trees, use more fuel for transport, more energy in milling and create more waste (which has to be managed) to replace a rotten or chewed piece of wood. By choosing to avoid treatments that extend the life of the wood, the consumer inadvertently increases their carbon footprint and contributes to faster deforestation.
A similar pattern appears in the food industry. When “chemical” preservatives are removed to satisfy a “clean label” trend, the risk of food-borne illnesses such as Listeria or Salmonella increases, and food waste skyrockets because products spoil before they can reach the table.
I am definitely not saying we should blindly trust what we are told by both “for”’ and “against” sides of the discussion. To me, the solution is to shift the conversation from the identity of a substance to its behaviour. We should ask three critical questions:
1/ What is the exposure level? Is the preservative held securely in the wood? An analogy, if I may – would you be prepared to walk on bitumen in bare feet? Bitumen contains more cancer-inducing compounds than you can wave a stick at, but will they be available to be absorbed by the feet?
2/ What is the dose? Is the amount present anywhere near an established “No Observed Adverse Effect Level”? We can reasonably predict what would happen if you drank a bottle of whisky or rum or vodka in an hour.
3/ What is the trade-off? If I remove this preservative, does the product become less safe or less sustainable over the long term?
We live in a world made of atoms, and every chemical is made of atoms. When we understand the difference between a “genuine hazard” and a “harmless trace”, we stop being victims of marketing or uninformed-driven fear and start being managers of our surrounds.
