Note: this is a transcript of a column I did for Radio 4’s “Cutting Edge” on Thursday 30 October 2008.
To say it was a surprise was an understatement. As I read a set of papers at my desk in the Royal Society of Chemistry office an advert for a product that was ‘100% chemical free’ glared out from the page. This from a company that sells products to make things grow in the garden. Just what were people supposed to be buying? Or more importantly what was being sold? Was it a con? Surely not, because the adverts were in the mainstream media. And if you check now using Google or your favourite search engine, you can find the web page that proudly announces that the product has ‘100% chemical free ingredients’.
So it’s a puzzle then. Nearly everyone would know that plants need nutrients to grow but if these are not chemicals what are they? Have the laws of nature been circumvented by a company whose achievements have yet to be recognised by the Nobel Prize committee?
Digging deeper, a sadder story emerges. Somehow, and in the face of the intelligence of the UK public, the company is single handedly seeking to redefine the subject of chemistry. Just think of all of those text books that will have to be scrapped; exam certificates burned and the cost of re-educating all those teachers.
Wow! I’m now looking forward to ‘100% chemical free table salt’ – that’ll solve the heart health problem in the ‘West’. In search of sanity I turned to my 12 year old daughter, Alexa. This young member of the public told me, ‘it’s stupid ‘D’ for that is what she calls me, everyone knows materials are made of chemicals, so it can’t be 100% chemical free.’
In search of some official balance on the ‘100%’ chemical free problem, I turned to the Advertising Standards Authority. Maybe they could temper the definition so that the public are not misled, nor be sold an item on the basis of poor science or at the very least an inaccurate description? You can guess the answer – the ASA ruled that this description was fine and would not mislead the public because people would know that 100% chemical free didn’t mean that – it meant something else. It meant ‘all things are chemicals except things that are 100% chemical free which are made of 100% recycled or naturally occurring materials’.
As I checked my calendar to ensure it wasn’t the 1st of April, I consoled myself on how wrong I was to worry about this. Perhaps I should offer the ASA a million pounds to put in my hand a material that is ‘100% chemical free’: what a staff incentive scheme that would be! But what is the point if they don’t understand the science or the implications of getting it wrong. Thinking about it more, I’d be happy to give the money to the first member of the public who could bring me any material I consider 100% chemical free – but of course they won’t enter because it’s patently impossible!
Where does all this get us? Well, it looks like misleading the public is fine and the subject of chemistry is being redefined. So let the re-education in our schools begin and let’s not worry about building a knowledge based economy in the UK. Let’s stick to intangible services and exotic financial products that no one understands until it’s too late. These sit well alongside 100% chemical free fertilizers that help things grow.
Of course, no one would want to encourage the drinking of beer. I am delighted that the ASA has such a rigorous policing policy. But I’m not sure that anyone will have been misled here – ask most people and I think the odd drink ’will have bolstered most people’s confidence’ at some time or another.