Contrary to the common belief among researchers and PR professionals, our social media research revealed that chemophobia—an irrational fear of chemicals—is driven more by deep distrust in organisations than by concerns about substances.
The research problem
Chemophobia is one of the most pertinent PR and comms problems in the chemical industry.
Despite that, it’s a very under-researched area. There is little data about public attitudes towards chemicals and way more anecdotal evidence.
And the most widely accepted piece of anecdotal evidence is that the main driver of chemophobia is low scientific literacy.
As such, PR practitioners and researchers have been operating under the so-called deficit model of science communication that we’ve seen in our analyses of the pharma industry – the idea that public scepticism towards modern science is caused by a lack of adequate scientific understanding.
However, we decided to use Commetric’s blend of AI-powered analytics and human expertise to address the research gap and test this assumption by looking at some data.
How chemophobia spreads
Analysing 8,270 comments in Reddit chemicals-related discussions, we found that the toxicity and safety of consumer products emerged as the main topic, followed closely by chemicals’ environmental impact:
Among consumer products, plastics and packaging were the most frequently mentioned ones, followed by kitchenware, food, cosmetics, cleaning products and pharmaceuticals, reflecting anxieties about harmful chemicals causing long-term health and environmental risks:
The focus on plastics and packaging was mainly due to the lively discussion around PFAS – a topic we’ve recently analysed extensively.
It overshadowed the discussion around other types of chemicals such as Teflon (PTFE) and controversial pesticides like Bayer’s Roundup:
Interestingly, chemicals that are not scientifically proven to be harmful were still discussed as dangerous. For example, GMOs were frequently branded harmful, despite extensive research showing their safety.
Similarly, parabens and sulfates were often discussed as dangerous, despite a lack of scientific consensus proving that they pose significant health risks at the levels used in consumer products. Meanwhile, artificial flavours and colours were often mentioned with concerns about their safety, even though most studies show they are safe when regulated.
This pattern illustrates how chemophobia works, where rightful concerns about some chemicals lead users to extend all chemicals – even to the ones crucial for food security and agricultural efficiency.
But why does this happen?
How chemophobia is fuelled
Going deeper, we found that the majority of Reddit comments were triggered by specific news events or scientific studies that have been widely covered in the media:
Many comments used sensational language that mirrors common media framing of chemical risks. Words like “toxic,” “poisonous,” and “cancer-causing” are frequently used next to “chemicals” – especially in scary expressions like “forever chemicals”, which was how PFAS was described in the latest flurry of alarmist media reports we analysed.
And reports blaming companies like 3M, DuPont, and Dow Chemical for PFAS contamination, as well as Bayer/Monsanto for dangerous pesticides and retailers like Aldi, Costco, and Walmart for harmful plastic packaging, have created an image of blatant corporate malfeasance among all companies.
This had a significant effect on how Reddit users talked about chemicals and the kind of logical fallacies they manifested:
The most common fallacy was distrust of authority, where users expressed mistrust of corporations, believing they are motivated by profit and often lie or withhold information about the safety of chemicals and products.
Naturalistic bias led users to favour “chemical-free” alternatives, viewing natural products as inherently safer than synthetic ones, even when regulated. In the meantime, dread risk bias amplified fears of chemicals being catastrophic or unknown, while the contagion heuristic caused users to believe even minimal contact with chemical substances could be dangerous.
All those biases were manifested, to a bigger or lesser extent, by the different consumer personas we identified in the discussion:
- The distrustful advocate: This persona dominated the discussion with their strong distrust of corporations, believing that they prioritise profit over public safety in consumer products. They often highlighted concerns about corporate malfeasance and regulatory delays in banning harmful chemicals.
- The natural products enthusiast: This persona focused on the benefits of chemical-free or natural products and advocates for using more environmentally friendly, “clean” alternatives.
- The misinformed alarmist: The comments reflected a substantial number of users who reacted strongly to sensational headlines or rumours about chemicals. They often repeat alarmist or exaggerated claims without delving into the scientific details, contributing significantly to the overall discussion volume.
- The eco-warrior: This persona was an active participant in discussions related to the environmental impact of chemicals. Comments often reflected concerns about pollution, sustainability and the ecological consequences of chemical use.
- The practical sceptic: This persona was the least dominant in the discussion, appearing mainly in comments that challenge exaggerated claims or provide a more measured perspective on chemical risks.
The dominant persona, the distrustful advocate, shaped the conversation around chemical companies like 3M, DuPont, Bayer and Dow Chemical.
This is illustrated on the map below which shows the links between the personas in the Reddit debate (represented by squares) and the companies (represented by circles) that they talked about:
The distrustful advocate portrayed the chemicals industry as untrustworthy, fostering a perception that corporations not only disregard environmental and human safety but also manipulate regulatory frameworks to their advantage.
The bottom line
Our research challenges the long-held belief among researchers and PR professionals that chemophobia is primarily driven by a lack of public knowledge about chemicals. Instead, we found that the true driver of chemophobia is a profound distrust in organisations.
That’s because people see chemical companies only as producing harmful chemicals for profit rather than producing some of the most essential compounds for human flourishing.
For instance, distrustful advocates voice concerns over harmful chemicals in consumer products but most likely don’t realise how essential chemicals are in the health industry. Natural products enthusiasts praise clean foods but don’t really know the role of chemicals in agricultural efficiency, which tackles problems like world hunger. Eco-warriors are rightfully worried about chemicals’ impact on the environment but are largely unaware of chemical companies’ work on green energy.
And we can’t blame them. Our previous chemicals analysis found that such positive industry contributions have received very little media attention.
This dynamic has profound implications for PR and communications in the chemical industry. Traditional efforts, which have focused on scientific literacy, fail to address the deeper issue: the erosion of trust in the institutions responsible for chemicals. People are not just uninformed; they actively believe that chemical companies are out to get them.
So the main goal shouldn’t be to make more people understand chemistry. It should be to make more people trust the brands that understand chemistry.