[JDEW]

The “everything is a chemical” ‘argument’ is an isolated demand for rigor imo. Everybody can reasonably squint their eyes, assuming good faith, and see that a compound created in a lab that has no nutritional value or is engineered to be overtly addictive (like high fructose corn sirup and what not) or any of the other million things we engineer every day to industrialize the food chain is what is meant by most people when they say “chemical”. And yes, many of these are bad for you, despite the (corporate funded) studies that say otherwise.

[callalex]

Are you aware of the vast and diverse water-soluble cancer causing chemicals that are present in roasted coffee beans and tea? They have a lot of L- and R- and -anine and -quanine etc. Also you are aware that Arsenic is a naturally occurring chemical? As well as mercury, lead, asbestos, even fundamental stuff like argon and carbon monoxide?

Again, why should I be scared of “chemicals”?

[nickburns]

using 'chemical' to make your points (which are well-taken, mind you) is, imo, virtue signaling. you don't find it bizarre that the phrase used was "chemicals and caffeine"?