Is ‘Dechemicalization’ even a real word? Prof. Klutse and Dr. Anyimah-Ackah clash over science, language and public communication

A heated public debate has emerged between Professor Klutse, a food scientist, and Dr Anyimah-Ackah, Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), over the scientific validity and policy use of the term “dechemicalization.” The controversy, which began after the term was adopted in public discourse by high-ranking officials, including the President, has reignited questions about how science should be communicated to the public.

The disagreement captures two contrasting philosophies: scientific precision versus communicative pragmatism. Professor Klutse argues that official language must adhere strictly to established scientific standards, while Dr Anyimah-Ackah insists that communication should prioritise public understanding, even if that means coining new words.

Prof. Klutse contends that “dechemicalization” is “nonsensical,” since “everything is a chemical, water itself is a chemical.” He says the term is “very ambiguous and amphibious,” making it misleading and scientifically incorrect. He argues that accepted scientific terms such as decontaminate, detoxify, purify, and remediate already exist for the processes policymakers intend to describe. According to him, the use of flawed terminology at the highest level of governance risks flawed decision-making. “If the President uses an incorrect term,” he warned, “it means that he’s going to take wrong decisions.”

In contrast, Dr Anyimah-Ackah defends the use of the term as a practical communication strategy. She argues that science “is already a difficult area” and that when addressing the public, “you don’t communicate it with jargon.” She describes her approach as the “operationalisation of defining terms,” meaning that words can be contextually defined to convey ideas effectively to a non-specialist audience.

ADVERTISEMENT

To illustrate her point, she draws analogies with familiar environmental terms that are not meant to be interpreted literally. “Deforestation,” she explained, does not mean cutting down every tree, and “decarbonization” does not mean removing all carbon but rather the excess CO₂. Similarly, “dewatering” refers to removing excess water, not all water. She argues that “dechemicalization” fits within this communicative pattern, helping citizens visualise the intended environmental action.

Dr Anyimah-Ackah also points to the natural evolution of language. She cites neologisms like “galamsey,” which originated as local slang for illegal mining but is now recognised internationally, and “Ponzi scheme,” coined to describe a once-novel form of financial fraud. “Language evolves to meet new descriptive needs,” she said, emphasising that scientific institutions must adapt to remain relatable.

Analysts note that the debate exposes a long-standing challenge in environmental communication, balancing scientific rigour with public accessibility. While Klutse’s insistence on lexical purity safeguards scientific integrity, critics warn that such rigidity risks alienating the public and making environmental policies harder to understand. On the other hand, Anyimah-Ackah’s pragmatic stance, though inclusive, invites concerns about policy precision. Without a technically defined endpoint, critics argue, a multi-million cedi remediation project described as “dechemicalization” could lack measurable standards for success.

Beyond academic semantics, the dispute has real implications for environmental governance and public trust. Experts caution that ambiguous terminology in official documents could lead to policy misinterpretation, unclear agency directives, and inconsistent enforcement. Public disagreements between experts, they warn, risk undermining institutional credibility and public confidence in the EPA’s scientific competence.

The controversy has prompted calls for a communication framework that reconciles both positions. Policy analysts propose a principle of “Accessible Accuracy”, a balanced approach ensuring that official communications are both technically sound and easily understood. Under this framework, institutions like the EPA would prioritise scientifically accepted terms in formal documents while explaining them in simple, relatable language for the public.

Experts further recommend that the EPA establish a centralised, public glossary of environmental terms with both technical definitions and plain-language explanations to ensure consistency across all communications.