Link Farm: Chemistry Communication

Blogs, like any medium, shift, change, and grow over time. At first, I devoted my humble corner of the internet to food chemistry. After a while, it became a tool to root out misconceptions about chemistry in popular culture.

Well, to borrow a phrase from Click and Clack, I've come around for the "third half of the show" - figuring out how to bridge the gap between the growing public desire for accessible, informative, entertaining science content and chemistry's approach to that communication. A lot of terms have swirled around this issue: "punching down," #BogusChem, "Inside Baseball," 'in-reach' not outreach, #chemophobia, and "dumbing down," to name just a few.

Thanks for the tip about the magnets, Andre!
(P.S. Yes, I know "D" isn't an element)

This post will serve as a (growing) collection of pieces dedicated to thoughtful chemistry outreach.
Readers: Have a favorite post I haven't included? Send it along in the comments.

Janet Stemwedel, Doing Good Science: "When we target chemophobia, are we punching down?"

Chad Jones, The Collapsed Wavefunction: "Punching down? I don't remember swinging at all."

Ash Jogalekar, The Curious Wavefunction: "Where's the chemistry lobby? On why we need a National Center for Chemical Education."

See Arr Oh, Just Like Cooking: "The Chemistry Popularity Conundrum"

Michelle Francl, Slate: "Don't Take Medical Advice from the NY Times Magazine"; Nature Chemistry: "How to counteract chemophobia";

Paul Bracher, ChemBark: "Combatting Chemophobia"

Rebecca Guenard, Atomic-O-Licious: "Chemistry Isn't Just About Chemicals"

Science 2.0: "Chemophobia - The Unnatural Fixation of Activists"

Chemjobber, Dr. Rubidium, See Arr Oh, Chemjobber: "Chemistry Avengers" (podcast)

Marc Leger, Atoms and Numbers: "Consider the audience when addressing chemophobia"

Chris Clarke, Pharyngula: "Did you know douchebags are full of dihydrogen monoxide?"

Andrew Bissette, Behind NMR Lines: "In defense of #chemophobia"

More to come...

Another Year, More Chemophobia

Over the holiday break, a few people sent me pictures and links to demonstrate that we still have plenty to do to counter chemophobia in 2015. Here's a sampling:

1. U.S. FDA Cancer ad. Have you seen these pictures around airports, bus stations, and subways? This one - which I'm sure is equally supposed to simultaneously discourage youth smoking (while reminding them of Sauron from Lord of the Rings) appeared in my inbox a few days ago:

Nothing like some straight-up chemophobia from Big Government.

2. Health beans - now chemical-free!

Thank Goodness that 'omega fatty acids' or 'vital antioxidants' aren't chemicals!*

3. Microwaving'll kill ya. As a throwaway line in the Newsweek article interviewing famous futurists about whether or not Back to the Future Part II accurately predicted the future, Syd Mead, a "visual futurist" who designs sets for sci-fi movies, said this:

"No, I don’t remember [how the film depicted food]. I hope it wasn’t pills. [laughs] That was a fixture in future films. Popping steak or spinach or whatever in a pill. I hope it never comes to that."

"Microwave dinners are bad enough. Of course, microwave upsets the molecular structure of food, which isn’t too terribly healthy."

I've heard these arguments before, but neither one makes any sense. Healthy people routinely take all sorts of food supplements in "pill form" - vitamins, curcumin, antioxidants, essential oils - the list goes on and on. And as far as I'm aware, microwaves can't actually "upset" (change) the molecular structure of food.

Reminder: Syd consults for science fiction movies. We have a lot of work to do.
--
*Yes they are.

Holiday Chemophobia: Can't We All Just Get Along?

Know what this is?
Me neither.
Source: LWON

First: A belated 'Happy Holidays' to all those chemists already returned to work.

Second: From the Twitter-verse comes a post from the (normally) fine writers over at Last Word on Nothing. 

Titled "Secret Satans: Chem101" (get it?!), the post fits in with a holiday series at LWoN. I'll let the editors explain:

"We are choosing our most daunting subjects and writing about why they scare us."

As a reader, I expected to hear some gripes and groans about the unfairness of chem grading, those interminable labs, perhaps pronunciation of long IUPAC-mandated noms-du-chem. But instead, right in the introduction, I spot this: "cold sweats," "freaked out," "deep dread," "chemophobia."

Yes, readers, this is a science blog.

I can hear the commentary now: "Calm down, SAO, this is a snarky, fun, satirical holiday piece. Right?" Well, no. "Hate" and "hatred" both appear, as does "loathe," "disaster," "evil plot," and "screwed up." Cue up the sardonic comparisons, like "cryptic as Arabic" or "esoteric knowledge, secret formulas kept by early metallurgists and alchemists." One of the authors speaks of a safety mishap involving [sic] "bromide gas," which recounts how her inadvertent calculation error caused a building evacuation. Fun stuff!

And then there's the graphics. How many times must we plead - Don't let art directors draw your molecules! I don't know exactly what these "animal tracks in the snow" represent, but if the piece aims to vilify simple chemical knowledge, it certainly does that (P.S. I know they're from Shutterstock, but that doesn't excuse their inclusion).

So why am I so critical? Shouldn't we just give LWoN a pass, have a chuckle at a favorite scientific punching-bag, and move on? 

No. Blogs, and especially science blogs, should try to take the high road. We're the voice of reason, the nagging suspicion, the social conscience of the wild, woolly online world. We should aim to advise, not attack, and question where others condemn. That cute anecdote at the end? Doesn't make up for the 709 words you just used to drag chemistry through the muck.

You can do better.

Chicken Chemophobia

A recent New York Times Op-Ed spot made the rounds late last night on Twitter. Full of inflammatory language, it seemed wholly bent on scaring the heck out of anyone reading it. The title - "Arsenic in Our Chicken?" - didn't exactly calm me down.

Is this in my chicken? Only very, very little
Credit: slashfood.org

Well, I'm a scientist, so let's look at this rationally. First things first: here are links to the two papers referenced in the study, one from Environmental Science and Technology (ACS), and one from Science of the Total Environment (Elsevier). (Editor's Note - Whenever a columnist feels pressed to validate his opinion with the words 'published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,' I turn on the skepticism). 


In both papers, analytical chemists take a peek at feather meal, a poultry industry byproduct, for compounds you might expect from factory farms: antibiotics, stimulants, and antihistamines. A surprise dark horse was encountered in arsenic, which apparently caught everyone so off guard that they required a full second paper to adequately discuss it. 


Glancing quickly at both journals' major tables, it's clear we're talking small amounts here: parts per billion (ppb), which for EST means ng / g, and for STE ug / kg. To put this in perspective, let's imagine we had a swimming pool, which we filled with 1000 L (~270 gallons) of water, which will weigh 1000 kg (density of water = 1 g / mL @ room temp). Now, what's a ppb for this scale? One milligram of material, or about what you'd add if a snowflake fell into your pool.

Better start eating....
Source: Home of Science Wonders

Overall, the article smacks of rampant chemophobia and fear-mongering. While the individual compounds, in acute (high) doses might be cause for concern, the detected values aren't near that much. The LD50 (oral, mouse) for arsenic, the value at which half of tested lab animals die, is 145 mg / kg; the maximum arsenic detected in feather meal = 4 mg / kg! This leap of logic contains an even more far-fetched premise: you'd have to eat two pounds of feathers just to take in that much!


Remember: infinitesimally tiny amounts of several "bad" substances float by you every day, but you don't often see people dropping dead.


Maybe that's the reason that this NYT reporter buries his lede - a quote from his source, Dr. K. Nachmann, an author on both papers: "We haven't found anything that is an immediate health concern." 


And look, now I've gone and buried it, too.


(Update, 12:09 4/5 - Commenters on Twitter point out that a topic I did not address - detection of banned antibiotics - could be cause for concern. I agree with that point)

"Holy Geez" - APM's Marketplace Interviews Dow (Chemical) CEO

"oh man, whatever they make is probably toxic. It's chemicals, it's hydrocarbons - holy geez, I don't want any of that stuff."


"Holy geez," indeed. The above quote, Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal's (KR) opening volley from today's interview with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris (AL), really sets the tone for the whole conversation. From there, to summarize: there's some kitschy Australia jokes, and a truckload of corporate newspeak about Dow's re-branding efforts and American manufacturing readiness. Without further ado, here's some choice quotes:

KR - "...if I say "chemistry," what do you think? People in white lab coats, right? Vials full of liquids, maybe?"

Sure, if you're into stock photos. Don't forget to include beakers, jokes about social awkwardness, and references to Breaking Bad!

Source: Busplug

AL- "But these days, you may have seen our ads on TV. We are really branding Dow. The word "chemical," of course, from a heritage point of view is still in our name." [Emphasis mine]

Again, when a major multinational conglomerate says these kind of things on syndicated radio, how can we ever hope to fight chemophobia?

AL - "So we've got to go out there and really re-educate humanity, because at the end of the day, 95 percent of all products out there have chemistry in them"

Dare I ask? What's the other 5%? Dark matter? Pixie dust? Aether? (This sounds like a job for Dr. Rubidium over at JAYFK, or our old pal Deborah Blum)

AL - "The word manufacturing, you know, even the word industry just doesn't sit well. People think about it as a smokestack, environmental, yesterday's era; that everything should be services."

I'm a proud member of the chemical industry. I make things. So do most of my colleagues, family, and friends. I'd like to say it's part of today's era. Anyone else?

AL - "We're re-branding what science, technology, engineering, maths mean to this economy and how we can transfer that into American jobs for the next generation."

Perhaps the most galling quote of all. I can hear Chemjobber sharpening his linguistic knives from all the way across the internet. Keep 'em ready, because the fight against mainstream #chemophobia continues...

Lake Erie Chemophobia: A Tale of Two Anatoxins

At first, I thought it might be an April Fools' prank in poor taste, but then I read the latest PNAS -

Looks like Lake Erie wants to hurt you.

OK, not the lake itself, but the potentially toxic concentrations of cyanobacteria formed in recent record algal blooms. Yesterday, a multi-institution group of ecologists and environmental engineers reported a 'perfect storm' of runoff fertilizer, warm weather, and quiet waters in the lake that led to a marked increase in 2011 cyanobacteria populations. In fact, there appear to have been two blooms - the first Microcystia, and the second Anabena, two bacterial baddies* associated with liver and neurotoxicity. Scary stuff!

Well, the press coverage stemming from the study hasn't calmed fears. Here's a sampling from NSF, Huffington Post, and Discover. The HuffPo title really runs the chemophobia angle:
"Lake Erie Blooms Expected to Continue, Threatening Ecosystem, People." (!!!)
They dress the presser up for the occasion, with words like noxious, toxic, ugly, hazard, and problem. Discover writes 'toxic' three times, without pointing out what the toxins are! Even the normally staid NSF jumps on the bandwagon, referring to a mysterious 'liver toxin.'

What types of toxins are we talking about? Actually, that's a bone of contention here: the researchers only mention two, microcystin and anatoxin. Those turn out to be confusing terms, since the generic names cover >80 types of different microcystins, and at least two anatoxins [A(s) and A, right]. One assumes that the scariest anatoxin (Anatoxin-A, or 'Very Fast Death Factor'), operates here, which certainly warrants concern.

But, sans information, there's a panicked sense to the releases not grounded in the published text. Both Discover and HuffPo indicate "~200x concentration" of "toxic stuff" in the cyanobacteria-enriched water. Do the researchers actually say this? Let's go to the PNAS (emphasis mine):

"Surface toxin concentrations could have reached over 4,500 μg/L in early August assuming all Microcystis and microcystin formed a surface scum 10 cm in thickness. The World Health Organization guideline for microcystin in recreational waters is 20 μg/L..."

This statement relies on multiple qualifiers and conditionals. Where's your skepticism, science writers? Yes, things were bad in Lake Erie in 2011, but to spit this couched statement back as fact does a real disservice.

Worst part? Of the three media, only Discover actually links back to the actual study. Sigh.

*Boy, I love science: the Purdue blue-green algae fact sheet I linked to for Anabena indicates that ecologists nickname the major detected species (Anabena, Aphanizomenon, Microcystia) Annie, Fannie, and Mike!

Huh?

While catching up on my old issues of C&EN, I happened across this ad on p. 24 of the March 10 issue:

At the risk of sounding insensitive, can someone please tell me what "the Elements Science" means?!? 

Perhaps some editorial help next time? Tamao's world-famous named reaction and many contributions to synthetic chemistry deserve better. I especially love his anti-chemophobia stance on this profile page at Kyoto U:

"It saddens Prof. Tamao that in recent years people have begun to associate negative images such as environmental pollution with the word ..."chemicals" ...He wishes the benefits of chemistry were more widely known. He points out that organic silicon compounds, his field of specialization, are chemicals that play a very familiar role in our lives. We are in contact with them every day without realizing it, in forms ranging from cosmetics to electronics. "When a new organic compound is created the most amazing things become possible, one after another," says Prof. Tamao. As he laughs impishly, it seems as if a flame of creative energy more powerful than the magic spell of the most brilliant wizard is quietly burning behind his eyeglasses."

Educational #Chemophobia

Usually, I use my blog as a stump to protest the branding of my chosen field as "toxic," or somehow poisonously malevolent. It's not often that I have to fight against someone who misunderstands the value of chemical education in everyday life. But, c'est la vie.

In today's Washington Post Answer Sheet, Mr. David Bernstein, a nonprofit executive from Maryland, writes in to protest an apparent state mandate that "forces" his teenage son to take chemistry. I understand that local politics get messy, and I don't presume to know the full story for his particular municipality. But why must chemistry always serve as the punching bag for what's wrong in early education?

One of Mr. Bernstein's major arguments involves future potential careers for his son: since he won't grow up to be a scientist, why take chemistry?

Suppose we argued against other required subjects (as I did earlier on Twitter):

"Why must my son take Geography? Google Maps and Garmin will always be there, right?"

"History? Not when there's Wikipedia!"

"He shouldn't take math. He'll never be an accountant, and everyone has calculators"

Chemistry boring? Sometimes, but
it's also really important.

Those arguments sound pretty far-fetched. Also, most students don't really commit to a career in Junior High, and many change their minds by college, anyway. So why not a broad education?

Second, Mr. Bernstein argues against mainstream chemistry education as "all memorization." Well, I'll agree - there's a lot to take in that first go-around. But while elemental numbering, valence electrons, and balancing equations sound rote and boring up front, the trends are the critical information. What makes atoms bigger or smaller? Why are ionic (charged) and covalent (shared) bonds so different? What does acidic or basic really mean? Once mastered, these types of rational thinking - using data to read trends - show up in all sorts of other pursuits, from buying stocks to choosing a healthy diet.

Third, Mr. Bernstein believes that his son will "suffer through" chemistry, and that he will recall little information from the course. Mr. Bernstein argues that the opportunity cost of a "painful" chemistry year will prohibit his son from taking "...subjects where he can grow and put to use one day."

I contend that a background in chemistry prepares you for all sorts of life situations. Doctors measure blood chemistry (pH, LDL / HDL ratios, chemokines, liver enzymes) to diagnose patients. Construction workers and architects rely on material properties (phase-transition temperatures, modulus, compression) to inform their building decisions. Surface area, entropy, and several organic reactions underlie cooking. Chemistry shows you why you can't clean up oil spills with water, and why a pile of salt won't dissolve in WD-40. And wouldn't it be nice to understand what all those ingredients on food labels actually are?

Boring, painful? Maybe. But useless? Definitely not.

One more thing: there are ~90* naturally-occurring elements, and a total of 118 spots (not all filled!) in the Periodic Table. I didn't have to Google it, because I took middle-school chemistry.

*Update - I originally had 92, but a curious reader corrected me - Tc and Pm are radioactive, and thus unstable in nature. So, 90. Then Stu Cantrill wrote in that several more are found in pitchblende, so I raised it to 98. Several tweets and comments have suggested numbers ranging from 84 to 98. Thus, the dreaded tilde. Good to have so many chemists about!

**Update 2 - Here's Ash at Curious Wavefunction, and Derek at Pipeline. Also see Janet over at SciAm's "Doing Good Science."

"Pure Goodness" - Whirlpool's Chemophobic Water Ad

Last night, courtesy of Chemjobber, came this ridiculous sham ad interesting tidbit:

Here's the Whirlpool pop-up ad I saw that started it all: "Don't drink from the periodic table." #chemophobia http://t.co/M5MBCiKf

Done chuckling yet? I hope not, because you haven't seen the accompanying video, with cloying tagline "Pure Goodness." Apparently, for Whirlpool's target market - wealthy American moms with stupendously huge kitchens - the issue of anything in drinking water scares them silly. And that's the right word, because that pop-up ad above literally reads "don't Drink from the periodic table." Did I somehow miss the memo?

News Flash! Dateline: July 30, 2012 - Water officially no longer derived from hydrogen, oxygen; sources say it exists in new 'drink dimension,' far removed from natural world!

OK, I get it: filtering water removes certain trace metals and organic products you might not want to ordinarily consume - for the moment, we'll overlook fluoride, sodium salts, or relatively innocuous trace metals like iron and copper. If you believe the ad, every poured cup of tap water contains the following (~ 0:09 in the video): mercury, chlorine, lead, ethylbenzene, ortho-dichlorobenzene, lindane, atrazine, para-dichlorobenzene, endrin, MTBE, and benzene. Nevermind that two of the listed pesticides (lindane, endrin) are long-since banned from food crops, or that local water authorities test for most of the other potential contaminants.

What about those scary-looking chemical structures at 0:05? (see left). I checked 'em out: from left, moving clockwise, you have carbofuran, dinoseb, and alachlor (Picky pedagogical note: I've never seen a gem-dimethyl group drawn that way before...should I expect some sort of agostic bond?). Dinoseb and carbofuran are both banned pesticides, and alachlor, though common, lists as only a Class III (slightly toxic) toxin.

As with all chemophobic ads, realize that Whirlpool exaggerates the situation to sell more fancy refrigerators. The same effect can be achieved with any carbon filter: remember Pur, or Brita? Perhaps then you wouldn't have to worry about the other pressing concern (0:58)...


...deadly fridge fungus!

"Everyone run, it's got Timmy!"
Credit: whirlpool YouTube

Goodness Gracious, Great Balls of...Sunscreen?

Actual AP headline yesterday: "Banana Boat recalls sunscreen due to fire risk." CNN, ever one for a scare, upped the ante with their headline: "Sunscreen could burst into flames on skin." (emphasis mine). Did I miss the part when sunscreen formulators started including white phosphorus in the mix?!?

Kidding aside, I'm not talking about "toxic chemicals" here; sunscreen already occupies a special place at Just Like Cooking due to the clouds of chemophobia swirling around it. The fire risk appears to involve two factors: engineering and consumer usage. An Energizer Holdings* corporate spokesman said the canister spray valve applies too much product, which leads to longer-than-average drying times. The exacerbating factor? Customers suffering burns engaged in barbecuing and welding immediately after application.

Well, what is so flammable about spray-on sunscreen, anyway? The ingredients list shows all the usual suspects: UV blockers, vitamins, surfactants, and polymers - none of which are particularly flammable. Two components catch my eye, though: isobutane and SD Alcohol 40. One commonly finds isobutane, the simplest branched hydrocarbon, in refrigeration coils and aerosol products. It could certainly ignite, but high volatility means that most of it flies away mere seconds after you spray it on. SD Alcohol 40**, however, is almost straight ethanol, and makes up a large portion of the overall spray. It would also fit the bill for physical properties: boils at 173 deg F, vapor pressure 40x lower than isobutane. A fog of ethanol slowly evaporating from your arms certainly invites ignition.

*Fast fact: Did you know Energizer Holdings owned Banana Boat? I didn't. They also apparently make shaving creams and tampons. Huh.

**The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) actually tightly regulates specially denatured (SD) alcohols for use in lotions, oils, creams, and sprays. Here's the page for blend "40." I was rather surprised to find out that sunscreen actually contains trace amounts of complex alkaloids: quassin, brucine. The bitter taste and side effects discourage drinking SD-40 for recreation.

Chemophobia Daily - NY Times (Again)

(This piece, by veteran Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, ran yesterday. It has been the focus of backlash and ire, from chemists on Twitter and other fora (#chemicalschangeus, #BigChem). Below, I've done some choice editing: to increase the alarmist hype, I've cut unnecessary interstitial words, focusing solely on inflammatory verbs and scary scientific terminology. Remember, this is only a 790-word column!)

"Chemicals Affect Us increasing alarm very common hormone-mimicking chemicals grotesque effects widely used herbicide female hormone feminizes male animals male frogs female organs male fish produce eggs contaminated chemicals male alligators tiny penises

growing evidence linking class chemicals problems humans breast cancer infertility low sperm counts genital deformities early menstruation diabetes and obesity congenital defect hypospadias misplacement urethra suspects endocrine disruptors wreak havoc endocrine system

Endocrine disruptors everywhere thermal receipts canned foods, cosmetics plastics food packaging Test blood urine human breast milk cord blood newborn babies

failure tackle Big Chem regulate endocrine disruptors

scolded Food Drug Administration failure ban bisphenol-A common endocrine disruptor

government vigilant threats grocery stores mountains Afghanistan

Researchers warn endocrine disruptors trigger hormonal changes DES synthetic estrogen cause vaginal cancer breast cancer decades later daughters now banned.

Scientists tiniest variations hormone levels influence fetal development female twin masculinized exposed hormones. Studies aggressive sensation-seeking eating disorders

worry endocrine disruptors hormones swamping fetuses analysis Endocrine Reviews

Fundamental changes chemical testing safety determination protect human health analysis declares chief environmental scientist toxicologist

nation’s safety system endocrine disruptors broken

endocrine disruptors data conclude chemicals not safe human populations developmental biologist

Worrying research long-term effects chemicals higher levels common endocrine disruptor, PFOA overweight PFOA unavoidable everything solutions.

Big Chem sensationalist science blocked strict regulation adopted tighter controls endocrine disruptors

Uncertainties scientists endocrine disruptors overwhelmingly protect families

microwave plastic pesticides refuse receipts"

~Fin~

*RECAP: That's 229 words there (29% of the article), including negatively-connoted words like "grotesque," "broken," and "aggressive," and even a bonus allusion to the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. Seven mentions of "chemical" (all negative), and a record 12 mentions of "disruptor."

And we wonder why there's so much extant public fear of chemicals?

Nitration Surprise

(File under "Learn something new every day")

Boom goes the peptide!

For some light bedtime reading, I chose Life Technologies' Molecular Probes handbook, a 1,000-page opus of how to make anything and everything biological light up in brilliant hues of Texas Red or Cascade Blue. Flipping to Chapter 1, I quickly glanced at the very first scheme in the entire catalog, and did a double-take: tyrosine nitration...by tetranitromethane!

TNM: First time's the charm!
Source: Molecular Probes Handbook

Not to tread on Derek - who has a good thing going with his "Things I Won't Work With" tales - but doesn't this look like it should be grandfathered in to his list?

"Rule of Six" violation? Check. Potentially explosive byproducts? Check Check. A brief glance at the MSDS shows some of the more exciting Hazard Codes ("H330 - Fatal if Inhaled"), and the Merck Index (#9305) ain't much better: TNM "attacks iron, copper, brass, and rubber" and "Has been proposed as [an] irritant war gas."

Fun!

But, lest I lapse into my own fit of hypocritical chemophobia, I should point out that this compound is apparently 'par for the course' for stalwart chemical biologists - it's been used since the 1920s to label proteins, and a 1966 JACS article dubs it "stable, specific, and gentle." Even PubMed brings up >600 references, so I suppose my initial gut-check was a bit unwarranted - TNM looks OK when used in dilute solutions. But, I'd still say you should think twice before considering it for routine bench work.

(More) CNN Chemophobia: What's a Chemical, Again?

(For more posts in this series, please click here and here...)

*PLEASE NOTE: The text of the original CNN article has changed!*

--------

Hey there, Cable News Network. We really have to stop meeting like this.

The latest snafu comes from CNN's Chart health blog courtesy of Twitter contact (and fellow blogger) Marc. The piece recaps an Opinion column written by Purdue neuroscientist Susan Swithers, which explores a strange and interesting phenomenon of artificial sweeteners: apparently, overconsumption of these compounds can fool the body into reacting as if sugar (glucose) were present, leading to unforeseen metabolic conditions.

The quibble comes a few paragraphs down, where the train falls off the track (emphasis mine):

"There are five FDA-approved artificial sweeteners: acesulfame potassium (Sunett, Sweet One), aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), neotame, saccharin (SugarTwin, Sweet'N Low), and sucralose (Splenda).  

All of them are chemicals. “Saccharin was one of the first commercially-available artificially sweeteners, and it’s actually a derivative of tar,” says Swithers. 

Natural sweeteners, like Stevia - which has no calories and is 250 times sweeter than regular sugar - is not a chemical, but is still a processed extract of a natural plant, and increases your health risks similar to artificial sweeteners."

Wait, what did I just read? From a neuroscientist, no less! (perhaps a misquote?)

One of these comes from a plant.
But all of these things are chemicals

1. Stevia, a commercial FDA-approved non-nutritive sweetener, is most certainly a 'chemical.' I've included a handy graphic (right) in case anyone was confused.

2. That first statement in the second paragraph? Quite true; all five compounds listed certainly are chemicals, too! Kudos for that one.

3. Can I tell you how tired I am of fighting against the "everything from tar = bad!" mentality pervading modern-day society? Anyone dusting off that tired chestnut needs to rub their eyes (hard) and look around. They probably recorded the line using a polymer-based recorder (made from tar). On interview day, both folks probably wore synthetic fibers (made from tar) and sat on plastic chairs (made from tar). They may have quaffed their thirst from water bottles (made from tar) or eaten a Twinkie (made from tar). Perhaps they drove to work that day, using gas (made from tar) in their car (made from tar...well, and rocks), down a highway (made from tar) singing to a CD (made from tar) and passing farm stands selling fruits and vegetables (made from dirt, gases, and chemicals).

Until next time, CNN. And there will, of course, be a next time.

Update, 7/10/13: Fixed small error in steviol structure.
Update, 7/11/13: A commenter points out that stevia sweetness relies on glycosides; I'd originally drawn the aglycone above. Fixed, Thanks!

Sunscreen Chemophobia: Oxybenzone

(I wrote this for participation in the 2012 'Toxic Chemicals' Blog Carnival, over at ScienceGeist)

This 'suit' wants to sneak more chemicals into your sunscreen!
Source: EWG 'Hall of Shame'

Courtesy of Mother Jones and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), we can all breathe a bit easier. The eco-conscious nonprofit organizations have just released their recommendations for summer sunscreens. Unsurprisingly, the Top 20 are cut from the same cloth; words such as "natural," "clear," "garden," and "organic" abound. Ingredients, too: ~20% or so of 'micronized' (>100 nm) zinc oxide, some titanium dioxide for good measure . . .and just about every fruit oil, tea extract, or skin moisturizer you can think of.

Actually, I found myself much more drawn to the 'Hall of Shame.' These sunscreen outlaws represent all the nefarious tricks #BigChem might play on an unsuspecting public - sneaking in oxybenzone, "nano-zinc," and retinyl palmitate (synthetic Vitamin A) to make a buck off naive customers. I won't weigh in on the last two ingredients, but oxybenzone certainly caught my eye.

Oxybenzone, also called benzophenone-3, finds its way into sunscreen, lipstick, lotions, paints, and polymers. According to the Merck Index, it was first prepared over a century ago (1906), and patents from the 1950s show a simple one-step prep, Friedel-Crafts acylation of benzoyl chloride, which forms the new C-C bond between the "left" aromatic ring and the C=O group. Oxybenzone actually absorbs UV light over a wide swath of the spectrum, from 280-320 nm, meaning it offers sun protection from both UV-A and UV-B.

oxybenzone

The EWG calls oxybenzone a "hormone-disrupting chemical." Like bisphenol A (BPA), another well-reported and contentious molecule, oxybenzone contains a free phenol group, and two aromatic rings linked by a central carbon bridge. These atomic features tend to crop up in compounds that mimic estrogens in the body.

Well, does oxybenzone pose endocrine risks? Where could you find that info, anyway?

I started where I usually do: TOXNET, the U.S. National Library of Medicine reference database. Oxybenzone triggers six references from the Developmental Toxin (DART) literature, which cover 18 years of studies on fish, mice, and cell cultures. I also checked PubMed, grabbed a 1992 National Toxicology Program (NTP) oxybenzone report, and the 2008 European Commission SCCP recommendations for consumer exposure.

What do the data show? At the highest doses - 50,000 ppm - all animals develop liver, kidney, and reproductive organ damage. But the dose makes the poison, and as you feed (oral) or rub on (dermal) less compound, the side effects fall off rapidly. No teratogenicity (fetal harm), no mutagenicity (DNA errors), and no unexplained deaths. The scientists did observe indications of "moderate reproductive toxicity," but, again, these showed up in the highest-dose groups. To replicate these effects in humans, you'd have to literally eat spoonfuls of the compound (For ongoing oxybenzone studies, see: NTP, CDC).

The European Union, exemplars for cautious chemical regulation, provide a convenient calculation for human exposure: for a standard 60 kg (132 lb) person, given skin absorption, sunscreen concentration (6% oxybenzone), and average application at 18 g (just over half an ounce), exposure = 1.78 mg / kg / body weight / day. That's ~2 ppm, fully 500 times less than the lowest doses currently testing at the NTP (see above). The 2008 EU panel assigns oxybenzone a Margin of Safety of 112; compounds above 100 generally meet their benchmark for safe use.

Delicious cup of low-dose,
 bioactive compounds
Source: Green Tea Health

But, hormones influence body chemistry at miniscule doses, right? And, these sunscreen compounds are ubiquitous! How can we be absolutely certain that they aren't toxic? Well, I'll counter with a simple observation: herbal, plant, and seed extracts - like the shea butter, aloe juice, camellia seed oil, jojoba, calendula, papaya, plantain leaf, starflower seed, linseed oil, green tea extract, olive oil, plankton, avocado oil, primrose oil, and bark extracts found in the "alternative" sunscreens - have just as many, if not more bioactive compounds!

For chemophobic consumers, the general (albeit, flawed) reasoning seems to go something like this:

Many small, aromatic, heteroatom-containing molecules may be endocrine disruptors.
Industrial companies produce many such chemical compounds.
Therefore, many "industrial" chemicals cause health problems.

Magically, however, this logical logjam clears if you mention "natural," "organic," or "chemical-free" formulations. I suspect the reasoning goes:

Many small, aromatic, heteroatom-containing molecules may be endocrine disruptors.
Natural product extracts contain dozens of compounds, some unknown, many untested.
But, since they're from plant extracts, they're probably safe.

Would consumer impressions of oxybenzone change if it were. . .a natural plant extract? Good news: it is.

That's right, the compound occurs naturally in various flower pigments, which chemically trained eyes might have detected in the "resorcinol-like" framework. To stretch the metaphor, given the eased FDA rules regarding dietary supplements, I wonder if one could employ this tactic to produce a "natural, plant-based sunscreen" that still contains oxybenzone!

Happy summer, everyone! Think clearly, ask questions, and challenge assumptions. And, wherever you buy it from, remember to always wear your sunscreen.

For a different perspective on EWG's sunscreen data, head over to Science-Based Medicine

Elsewhere...

Chemophobia got you down? Need a laugh? Call the Chemistry Avengers!

Hey, check it out: Blog Syn #002 is live!
(And I hear that #003 is well on its way...)

More to come at JLC in the next few days. Stay tuned!

JLC Turns Two!

Credit: Nat Geo

(I won't be here to update on July 15, so I'm a bit early!)

Once again, my heartfelt thanks go out to each and every person who clicked here over the past 363 days.

This past year's been full of ups and downs, as #phdlife in start-ups often is. Blogging keeps me both excited about and engaged in science communication...and provides a welcome respite when things at work get too crazy. 

Of note, 2013 has seen an explosion in new chemblogging talent. I'm stoked to watch our combined efforts start to get real recognition in the wider world and in the general public.

Salient Factoids from Year 2:
(Year 1 recap)

Stats:
Pageviews: 276,000+
Posts: 218
Total Tweets (ongoing): 11,700+
Blog Carnivals (7): #ChemSummer and #FoodChem (hosted by CENtral Science), #KCNBirthday (hosted by BRSM), #ChemCoach, #ChemMovieCarnival, #BRSMBlogParty, #RealTimeChem

Podcasts: 14 (Thanks to Matt, CJ, Dr. Rb, Ethan, and Deb!)
Stu, you're in the queue...

Elsewhere: Blog Syn (5), The Haystack (2), Chemistry Blog (2), Chemjobber (1), Sceptical Chymist (2)
(*July 2012 - July 2013. Want a guest post, or want to guest post? Email me at seearroh_AT_gmail_DOT_com)

Recurring Themes: Reproducibility, Pop Culture Chemistry, Plagiarism, WWWTP?, Food Chemistry, Catalysis, Blog Philosophy, Wordle, Chemophobia, Tech Funding, Enthusiasm, Cool Structures, Faculty Moves, Football, Surveys, Star Trek, Friday Fun, Hand-drawn