Tensions in green classes

So, these past two weeks, I took the Society of Mechanical Engineers' Green Specialist certificate classes. Taking the test will be at some future time. One of the classes was "green chemistry". Now, I am in support of this idea-a lot of pretty harsh solvents don't need to be used nearly as much as they are, and looking for ways around that can be both good business sense and environmentally important. Because let's be honest, a 2 step process with 77% yield is an improvement on a 5 step process with 44%.
My problem, however, is the assumption in that class, and in the sustainability community in general that chemical free is even a legitimate term.
Water is a chemical. You can't sell something chemical free. Fear marketing like that is the reason I won't buy anything from Burt's Bee's-they have some ideas that I like(tea tree oil works better on my pimples than salicylic acid, but I'll get my own oil and mix it in other company's products-and this is as much personal info as needed on this blog) because I won't give them money to promote fear of my industry.
My other concern about the class is the image of chemists as misguided, not knowing what we do that may be harmful to the environment, "not understanding some of the risks". I would argue that most chemists have a better understanding than the public about the risks of most chemicals. We look at the MSDS. We have to learn what protective measures are important.
This idea also erases the contribution by many chemists looking specifically to do things like find a safer/more efficient route to synthesize ibuprofen, or looking to develop environmental remediation technologies. Or people like professors Vicki Grassian and Mark Young that I used to work with that study the effects of what we put in the atmosphere on the many process happening up there.