If
you’ve
ever
muttered
to
yourself,
“I
should
really
get
the
organic
peaches,”
or
“I
need
to
replace
my
old
makeup
with
‘clean’
beauty
products”
or
“I
really
want
to
buy
the
“non-toxic’
laundry
detergent,”
you
may
have
fallen
into
the
chemophobia
trap,
an
almost
inescapable
phobia
that’s
infiltrating
lots
of
homes.

HuffPost
Life
delivers
practical,
reliable
advice
to
navigate
life’s
challenges
and
make
informed
decisions.
Support
journalism
that
empowers
you
—

join
our
membership
program
today.

Chemophobia
is
complicated,
but,
in
short,
it’s
a

distrust
or
fear
of
chemicals
and
appears
in
many
of
aspects
of
life
from
“chemical-free”
soaps
and
“natural”
deodorants
to
vaccine
distrust
and
fear-mongering
about

seed
oils.

But,
unlike
most
things,
it
plays
on
the
emotions
of
both
conservative
MAGA
voters
and
liberal
MAGA
opposers,
even
though
actual
chemophobia-based
thoughts
vary
significantly
in
each
group.

“Much
of
this
started
on
the
left-leaning
side
of
the
political
aisle
as
a
result
of
misunderstanding
the
difference
between
legitimate
chemical
industrial
incidents
and
just
chemicals
more
broadly,”
said

Andrea
Love,
an
immunologist,
microbiologist
and
founder
of

Immunologic,
a
health
and
science
communication
organization.

Appealing
to
the
left,
it
was
seen
as
counter-culture
and
opposed
the
“evil
market
forces,”
said

Timothy
Caulfield,
the
co-founder
of

ScienceUpFirst,
an
organization
that
combats
misinformation,
and
author
of
“The
Certainty
Illusion.”

“But
now
we’re
seeing
it
shift
to
the
right,
and
I
think
it’s
almost
now
entirely
on
the
right,
or
at
least
the
loudest
voices
…
are
on
the
right,”
Caulfield
noted.
These
are
voices
like


Casey
Means,
a
wellness
influencer
and
surgeon
general
nominee,
and
even


Robert
F.
Kennedy,
Jr.,
the
Health
and
Human
Services
secretary.

On
the
right-leaning
side,
chemophobia
appears
as
a
distrust
and
demonization
of
things
like
studied
vaccines
and
medications
and
the
pushing
of
“natural”
interventions,
“when
those
have
no
regulatory
oversight
compared
to
regulated
medicines,”
Love
noted.

“On
the
left-leaning
[side],
this
gets
a
lot
of
attention
because
it
plays
into
this
fear
of
toxic
exposures,
and
this
‘organic
purity’
narrative
…
‘you
have
to
eat
organic
food,
and
you
can’t
have
GMOs,’”
Love
said.

No
matter
your
political
party,
chemophobia
has
infiltrated
people’s
homes,
diets
and
minds,
while
also
infiltrating
brand
slogans,
marketing
campaigns
and
political
messaging
(ahem,
Make
America
Healthy
Again).
Here’s
what
to
know:

Chemophobia
says
you
should
avoid
chemicals,
but
that’s
impossible
—
water
is
a
chemical
and

you
are
made
up
of
chemicals.

“First
of
all,
everything
is
chemicals,”
said
Love.
“Your
body
is
a
sack
of
chemicals.
You
would
not
exist
if
it
were
not
for
all
these
different
chemical
compounds.”

Chemophobia
leads
people
to
believe
that
synthetic,
lab-made
substances
are
inherently
bad
while
“natural
substances”
—
things
found
in
nature
—
are
inherently
good,
and
that
is
just
not
true,
Love
said.

The
current
obsession
with
“all-natural”

beef
tallow
as
a
replacement
for
“manufactured”
seed
oils
is
a
prime
example
of
this.

“Your
body
…
has
no
idea
if
it’s
a
synthetic
chemical,
meaning
it
was
synthesized
in
a
lab
using
chemical
reactions,
or
if
it
exists
somewhere
out
on
the
planet,”
Love
added.

Your
body
doesn’t
know
the
difference
between
getting
vitamin
C
from
a
lime
and
getting
vitamin
C
that’s
made
in
a
lab,
she
explained.

Your
body
only
cares
about
the
chemical
structure
(which
is
the
same
in
synthetic
chemicals
and
natural
chemicals)
and
the
dosage
you’re
being
exposed
to,
Love
noted.

“This
irrational
fear
of
chemicals,
just
by
and
large,
is
antithetical
to
life
because
chemistry
and
chemicals
are
why
everything
exists,”
Love
said.

Everything
that
is
made
up
of
matter
is
a
network
of
chemicals,
she
explained.
That
goes
for
your
body,
your
pets,
your
car,
your
TV,
your
home
and
the
food
you
eat.

“Everything
is
just
these
structures
of
chemicals
linked
together
into
physical
objects
…
so,
there’s
zero
reason
to
be
afraid
of
chemicals
broadly,”
said
Love.

Chemophobia
was
born
from
the
‘appeal
to
nature
fallacy’
and
a
desire
to
‘get
back
to
ancestral
living.’

Chemophobia
was
born
from
the
“appeal
to
nature
fallacy,”
said
Love,
which
is
“the
false
belief
that
natural
substances
…
are
inherently
safe,
beneficial
or
superior,
whereas
synthetic
substances
are
inherently
bad,
dangerous,
harmful
or
worse
than
a
natural
counterpart.”

There
is
nothing
legitimate
about
this
belief,
she
added.
But
both
chemophobia
and
the
appeal
to
nature
fallacy
are
central
to
pseudoscience,
the
anti-vaccine
movement
and
the
MAHA
wellness
industry,
Love
noted.

At
the
core
of
chemophobia
and
appeal
to
nature
fallacy
is
also
a
“romanticization
of
ancestral
living,
when,
in
reality,
we
lived
very
poorly,
we
died
very
young
and
often
suffering
and
in
pain,”
Love
said.

“Going
back
to
simpler
times”
are
talking
points
for
both
MAHA
and
MAGA,
which,
of
course,
stands
for
“Make
America
Great
Again,”
a
slogan
that
alludes
to
the
past.
And,
RFK
Jr.
has
repeatedly
claimed
America
was
healthier
when
his
uncle,
John
F.
Kennedy,

was
president.

This
is
complicated,
but
not
true;
two
out
of
three
adults
died
of
chronic
disease
and
life
expectancy
was
almost
10
years
less
than
it
is
now,

according
to
NPR.

Chemophobia
is
designed
to
elicit
negative
emotions
such
as
anxiety
and
fear.

Chemophobia
is
incredibly
effective
because
it
evokes
people’s
negative
emotions,
said
Love.
And
it’s
hard
for
most
people
to
separate
emotions
from
facts.

If
someone
on
social
media
says
that
a
certain
ingredient
is
harming
your
kids,
you’ll
be
scared
and
want
to
make
lifestyle
changes.
If
someone
claims
your
makeup
is
bad
for
you,
you’ll
also
be
scared
and
want
to
make
changes.

“Take,
for
example,
fructose,
since
it’s
having
a
moment,”
said

Andrea
Hardy,
a
dietitian
and
owner
of

Ignite
Nutrition,
who
is
referring
to
a

viral
social
media
video
about
the
“harms”
of
fructose.

“An
influencer
online
might
say
‘fructose
is
bad,
the
liver
can’t
handle
it,
we
shouldn’t
be
eating
any
fructose.
I’ve
cut
all
fructose
from
my
diet
and
I’m
the
healthiest
I’ve
ever
been.’
Then
a
mom,
wanting
to
do
the
best
for
her
children
says,
‘I
need
to
cut
out
all
fructose’
and
not
only
removes
the
ultra-processed
foods
like
sweetened
beverages,
but
also
says
no
to
fruit
in
her
household
because
of
this
misinformation,”
Hardy
said.

This
has
lots
of
consequences,
including
a
lack
of
nutrition
in
the
home
(from
missing
out
on
the
fiber
and
vitamins
from
fruit)
and
the
encouragement
of
disordered
eating
in
kids,
who,
from
this
elimination
of
fructose,
will
learn
the
false
idea
that
“fruit
is
bad”
or
“fructose
is
bad,”
explained
Hardy.

Our
brains
want
clear,
black-and-white
information.
Vilifying
one
product
while
celebrating
another
achieves
that.

Between
social
media
and
the
internet,
we
live
in
a
“chaotic
information
environment,”
according
to
Caulfield.

There’s
seemingly
factual
information
coming
at
you
from
everywhere,
and
it
can
be
hard
to
know
what
to
trust.

“The
reality
is,
our
brains
want
simple.
They
want
black
and
white,”
said
Hardy.

We
make
choices
all
day
long,
which
makes
categorizing
things,
like
food,
as
“good
or
bad”
appealing
to
our
minds,
Hardy
said.

And,
everyone
wants
to
make
the
“good”
choice,
Caulfield
added.
“We
want
to
do
what’s
best
for
ourselves
and
for
the
environment
and
for
our
community
and
our
family,”
he
said.

As
a
result,
we
look
for
“clear
signals
of
goodness,”
or
“short
cuts
to
making
the
right
decision,”
added
Caulfield.
We
turn
not
only
to
words
like
“good”
or
“bad,”
but
also
“toxin-free,”
“natural”
and
“clean,”
he
said.

Seeing
these
words
slapped
on
a
jar
of
nut
butter,
on
a
shampoo
bottle,
or
on
sunscreen
makes
making
the
“right
choice”
easier,
he
added
—
“even
though
the
evidence
does
not
support
what’s
implied
by
those
words,
those
‘health
halos,’”
noted
Caulfield.

These
words
are
an
“oversimplification,”
Hardy
said.
“People
now
leverage
their
social
media
presence
to
share
those
oversimplified
nutrition
messages,
most
of
which
are
at
best,
wrong,
at
worst,
harmful.”

Chemophobia
is

really
hard
to
escape.
It’s
even
built
into
marketing
campaigns
and
product
names.

If
you’ve
ever
fallen
into
the
chemophobia
trap
without
knowing,
you
aren’t
alone.
It’s
complicated
and
nuanced,
and
the
science
is,
at
times,
messy.

Moreover,
chemophobia
is
the
inspiration
behind
brand
names
and
entire
product
categorizations;
“clean
beauty”
is
one
huge
example.

Fears
of
chemicals
are
now
marketing
ploys.
“You’re
going
to
find
products
that
claim
that
they’re
‘chemical-free,’
and
that
doesn’t
exist,”
Love
said,
referring
to
the
fact
that,
once
again,
everything
is
made
up
of
chemicals.

Market
forces
take
over
and
cling
to
the
chemophobia
buzz
words
of
the
moment,
whether
that’s
“clean”
“gluten-free”
or
“non-GMO,”
Caulfield
said.

Now,
we
have
Triscuits
labeled
with
non-GMO
marketing,
he
said.
We
also
have
entire
product
lines
at
stores
like
Sephora
that
are
categorized
as
“clean.”

“It
creates
this
perception
[of]
‘if
that
one’s
chemical-free,
then
the
alternative
that
isn’t
labeled
as
such
must
be
dangerous,
must
be
bad,’”
Love
said.

Once
again,
making
the
“good”
choice
easy.

This
isn’t
to
say
there
isn’t
room
for
improvement
in
the
health
and
food
space.

“I
work
in
the
public
health
space.
I
don’t
know
a
single
public
health
researcher,
a
single
agricultural
researcher,
a
single
biomedical
researcher
who
doesn’t
want
to
make
our
food
environment
safer
for
everyone,”
said
Caulfield.

Just
because
Caulfield
speaks
out
against
chemophobia
doesn’t
mean
he
doesn’t
want
to
make
our
food
and
health
environment
healthier,
he
stressed.

“I
do
think
we
should
always
be
challenging
both
industry
and
government
to
do
exactly
that,
but
at
the
same
time,
we
have
to
be
realistic
and
understand
the
nature
of
the
risks
and
the
magnitude
of
risks
at
play,”
he
said.

Both
our
food
environment
and
agricultural
practices
could
be
safer,
“but
those
moves
should
be
based
on
what
the
science
says,
and
not
on
slogans,”
Caulfield
said.

Corporate
greed
and
capitalism
hinder
these
safety
changes.

“The
huge
irony
here
…
the
answer
to
all
of
these
chemophobia
concerns
…
it’s
more
government
regulation.
It’s
more
robust,
science-informed
regulation.
And
in
this
political
environment,
that
ain’t
going
to
happen,
That
just
simply
isn’t
going
to
happen,
as
we’ve
already
seen,”
Caulfield
said.

The
Trump
administration
wants
to

repeal
environmental
protections
that
help
fight
climate
change
(and
the
air
we
breathe
has

huge
health
implications)
and

has
cut
funding
to
departments
that
are
in
charge
of
food
safety,
which
could
jeopardize
the
items
you
buy
at
the
grocery
store.

“So,
it
all
just
becomes
slogans
and
wellness
nonsense,”
along
with
the
peddling
of
unregulated,
unproven
supplements
(that
are
basically
just
untested
chemicals),
Caulfield
added.

And,
many
of
the
people
who
claim
to
be
so
concerned
about
chemicals
then
profit
from
the
sale
of
unregulated
supplements,
Caulfield
said.

Focusing
on
one
‘bad’
ingredient
or
so-called
‘natural’
alternatives
won’t
actually
make
you
healthier.

This
fear
of
chemicals
will
have
an
enormous
impact
and
is
“something
we
won’t
even
realize
and
see
the
effects
of
for
years
to
come,”
Hardy
said.

“If
we
want
to
improve
public
health,
focusing
on
a
single
ingredient
in
food
or
swapping
seed
oils
for
beef
tallow
isn’t
the
answer
to
our
public
health
problems,
it’s
a
distraction,”
Hardy
said.

Food
dyes,
seed
oils,
“non-clean”
beauty,
whatever
the
item
may
be,
become
a
common
enemy,
allowing
folks
to
ignore
the
fact
that
this
isn’t
actually
a
problem
that’s
central
to
the
country’s
health
outcomes,
Love
added.

RFK
Jr.
has
claimed

that
“Americans
are
getting
sicker”
and
research
does
show
that
America
has

worse
health
outcomes
while
spending
more
on
health
care
than
other
Western
countries,
but
it’s
too
simple
(and
flat-out
wrong)
to
blame
any
one
makeup
chemical
or
item
in
your
pantry.

“Instead
of
critically
assessing
and
saying,
’Hey,
we
do
have
some
health
challenges,
but
what
are
the
underlying
factors
to
that?
Maybe
it’s
housing
inequity
and
lack
of
national
health
care
and
all
of
these
societal,
structural
issues,
and
it’s
not
these
singular
food
ingredients,”
Love
said.

“These
conversations
distract
us
from
the
real
things
that
we
can
do
to
make
ourselves
and
our
communities
healthier,
and
I
think
that’s
one
of
the
biggest
problems
with
MAHA,”
said
Caulfield.

“No
one’s
a
huge
food
dye
fan.
I’m
not
going
to
go
to
the
mat
for
food
dye
[but]
…
all
these
are
distractions
from
the
things
that
really
matter
to
make
us,
to
make
our
communities
healthier
—
equity,
justice,
access
to
health
care,
education,
gun
laws
—
these
are
the
things
that,
on
a
population
level,
are
really
going
to
make
a
difference,”
Caulfield
said.

Whether
someone
has
conservative
or
liberal
views
that
fuel
their
chemophobia,
the
fear
of
chemicals
is
dangerous.
And,
it’s,
sadly,
more
prevalent
than
ever,
Caulfield
said.

It’s
causing
people
to
say
no
to
necessary
vaccines,

not
wear
sunblock
out
of
fears
of
“toxins,”
avoid
fruit
because
of
fructose
and
more.

“This
is
going
to
kill
people
…
this
is
really
serious
stuff,
and
it’s
an
incredible
time
in
human
history
in
the
worst
possible
way,”
Caulfield
said.

The
original
version
of
this
story
was
published
on
HuffPost
at
an
earlier
date.