›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

"Contains no chemicals"

snowbullsnowbull
edited 2011-04-05 15:11:52 in General
Cue-bey
Why are companies allowed to do this?

Comments

  • DebossDeboss
    Because English is a terrible language for upholding truth in advertising laws.
  • ChagenChagen
    edited 2011-04-05 19:32:39
    [tɕagɛn]
    I highly doubt that other languages don't suffer from this problem.

    Hat/Enthält keine Chemikalien.

    There, I just said the exact same thing in German.
  • PonicalicaPonicalica
    (void)
    The question is if «Chemikalien» means the exact same thing in German.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    It is the plural form of "Chemische". Which means "Chemical". Therefore, "Chemikalien" means "Chemicals". Nothing more to it. For god's sake, it even looks and sound similar to the english word!
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Chagen, translations are almost never exact. There can be a wider or smaller range of things that fit within the definition. There are also connotations and such that can be lost.

    That said, I'm curious about what Deboss meant.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Okay, that's just nitpicking. Yes, translations can be inexact. But "Chemikalien" means "Chemicals". It is used in the exact same place and means THE EXACT SAME THING. 

    There are words which directly translate into English in German. There are in all langauges. "Ich" means "I". It never means anything else. "Laufen" means "to run". It never means anything else. Both of those words DIRECTLY translate into English. As does a lot of German words. 
  • RedEyedAbyssRedEyedAbyss
    Technically, you can't have a material that doesn't contain chemicals.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Which is why I find it ridiculous that companies advertise things saying that they contain no chemicals.

    What is with the public's fear of chemicals or anything scientific? Appeal To Nature is a fallacy, people.
  • PonicalicaPonicalica
    edited 2011-04-05 20:11:58
    (void)
    «Okay, that's just nitpicking.»

    No, it's not.  You see, the English word «chemicals» is used both in the scientific sense, meaning a form of matter with the same molecules, and the layman's sense, in which it mostly means preservatives.

    Whether or not the German word has both meanings is a very important question, and one which I'm not going to accept an answer to from you, because you are not a native German speaker.
  • GelzoGelzo
    edited 2011-04-05 20:10:13
    Pony Sleuth
    The same is true for "theory", which causes exactly the problems you'd expect.
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Poni: Then we're arguing two completely different things. I am only arguing from the scientific definition, you are arguing from both.

    We should go bug Nyarly to get the true answer.
  • PonicalicaPonicalica
    (void)
    The topic is talking about its use in labeling.  The layman's definition is the one that labelers mean when they say «Contains no chemicals».
  • ChagenChagen
    [tɕagɛn]
    Huh. I assumed they meant "does not contain any chemicals of any kind whatsoever" and were banking on the average consumer being too stupid to know that that kind of statement is Wronger Than Wrong.
  • StormtroperStormtroper
    Umm, it's still possible that Chagen is wrong, but it's not true that translations are "almost never exact", not for closely related languages. In fact, the exact same connotations exist in the Spanish word for chemical and they're not even in the same language family.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    I admit I don't have any evidence to contradict what you're saying, and I probably overstated things, but note that by exact, I do mean exact. 
Sign In or Register to comment.