I'm sure if they were still around today those who produced food for thousands of years without chemicals would beg to differ.
Even if that was his point, it is still completely wrong.
>It is impossible to produce food without chemicals.
If you live in the northern hemisphere, it is only June. Go plant a handful of pumpkin and watermelon seeds in a patch of fertile earth. Add no "chemicals" of any kind - man made or otherwise. Return in 4 months and you will very likely see food that has been grown with absolutely no chemicals at all.
It is impossible to grow food without chemicals.
Discussing individual chemicals by name is inefficient, confusing and almost certainly requires scientific citations to be remotely worthy of discussion.
Going by groups of chemicals is a bit better, but then citations are largely not applicable.
There are no synonyms or near synonyms. The dictionary definition of ”chemical” (noun), however, is explicitly clear:
1 : a substance obtained by a chemical process or producing a chemical effect
2 : a drug
I posit that the person saying ”chemical” is not being lazy, they are being scientifically accurate while enabling rational discussion.
It’s anyone saying ”but EVERYTHING is chemicals” that needs to check the dictionary.
In this particular thread, my first contribution was too flippant to be constructive, so I deserved the down-vote. But I wasn't being intellectually dishonest.