Ink and Equations

Real science, written as stories, poems, satire and speeches

Ink and Equations

Welcome in.

Real science, written as stories, poems, satire and speeches.

  1. How an Old Ball Swings the Wrong WayUnpacked, 8 Nov
  2. Why the Sea Bulges Away From the MoonUnpacked, 7 Nov
  3. Why Measles Needs Almost Everyone VaccinatedUnpacked, 7 Nov

Find your way around

Yours

    Nothing saved yet. Use Save under any piece’s byline and it waits here.

    There Is No Such Thing as Chemical-Free

    An argument that the most common label in the shop is the only one guaranteed to be false, and that the right question was asked five hundred years ago.

    By The editors You've read this

    Cite

    The editors. “There Is No Such Thing as Chemical-Free.” Ink and Equations, Rhetoric, 21 Sept 2026. /rhetoric/there-is-no-such-thing-as-chemical-free/

    Fig. 1 Everything is made of chemicals; whether a substance harms you depends on what it is and how much you take in, not on whether it is natural or made in a factory, and an identical molecule behaves identically whatever its source.

    Walk down any shop aisle and you’ll see it: shampoo, face wash, hair oil, even vegetables, proudly labelled “chemical-free”. I’d like to argue that this phrase should be retired, because it’s the only label in the shop that is guaranteed to be false.

    Here’s why. A chemical is just a substance: a particular kind of matter, made of particular atoms joined in particular ways. Water is a chemical: two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen. Oxygen is a chemical. Every vitamin, every protein in a bowl of dal, every molecule in a mango is a chemical. A ripe banana contains hundreds of different ones, many with names that would look terrifying on a label. A truly chemical-free product would be an empty box, and even then the box would be a problem.

    What the label is trying to say is “no ingredients you’d find scary”. But that mixes up two completely different questions: what something is made of, and whether it will hurt you. And the shortcut most of us use for the second question, natural means safe and artificial means dangerous, is simply wrong.

    Nature is full of poisons. The most toxic substance known, botulinum toxin, is made by a bacterium, and a tiny amount can kill. Castor beans, deadly nightshade, certain mushrooms, the venom of a cobra: all natural, all organic, all free of factory processing. Meanwhile, the factory-made vitamin C in a tablet is exactly the same molecule as the vitamin C in an orange. Not similar. Identical. Same atoms, same bonds, same shape. A molecule has no memory of where it was made, and your body has no way to tell, because there is nothing to tell.

    So what does decide whether something is harmful? Five hundred years ago, a Swiss physician called Paracelsus put it in one line that is still the first lesson of toxicology: the dose makes the poison. Everything is toxic at some amount, and almost everything is harmless at a small enough amount. The question is never just “what”, but always “what, and how much”.

    Take water, the most natural thing there is. Drink an enormous amount of it in a short time, far more than your kidneys can deal with, and you dilute the salt in your blood so much that your cells start to swell. People have died this way. Or take caffeine: a cup of coffee is pleasant, while the amount in many dozens of cups, taken at once, could kill you. On the other side, there are substances with alarming names that are perfectly safe in the amounts we meet them, like the ascorbic acid that is just vitamin C, or the sodium chloride that is just salt.

    This matters for more than shopping. When we sort the world into “natural” and “chemical”, we stop asking the questions that actually protect us. A herbal product can still contain a substance that damages the liver. A preservative can be what stops a food growing dangerous bacteria. Fear of a long word can push people away from something safe and towards something that isn’t, as long as the label is green and has a leaf on it.

    In 2008, Britain’s Royal Society of Chemistry offered a million pounds to anyone who could produce a genuinely chemical-free material. Nobody claimed it. Nobody could. So I’m asking for a small change. When you see “chemical-free” on a packet, read it as what it really is: a marketing claim that tells you nothing. And then ask Paracelsus’s question instead. What exactly is in this? And how much?

    What did you think?

    Tell the editors
    What is it about?

    Sources

    1. Royal Society of Chemistry, £1 million challenge for a chemical-free material (2008)
    2. Grandjean, P., "Paracelsus Revisited: The Dose Concept in a Complex World", Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2016)

    Read next