4 ms·

As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden

As Nicholas Taleb put it - stuff that is natural is time-tested. Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. The burden of proof is on the synthetic. And health issues can materialize with a time gap of a decade or so - essentially you can ruin a couple of generations with a mistake you didn't catch in time. It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to resort to regulatory capture so often.

sametmax 10y ago
Particularly, they have been time-tested in a complex system. Our tests are not only limited in time, but also in complexity. Scientists take a sample of subjects in a defined environment. The benefit of that is that they can draw definitive conclusions because of the manageable variables. The problem with it is that you fail to see the big picture, the many interactions with the numerous components of a real life activity, and on the long run. When talking about living things and food, or in that case, living things that are food, the context is incredibly important to define what is safe or not.
bojan 10y ago
Is it really (time-)tested? How do we know what is safe to consume, especially long-term? We don't really have proper data to support most claims. We did not track and log the causes of death throughout the vast majority of our history.
cmdrfred 10y ago
>Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. Its not so simple. When you consider the significantly lower yields of organic farming[0], combined with a growing world population 71% of which lives on less than $10 a day[1] that will not be able to afford these increased food costs you are left with a question. Do you prefer to add perhaps a few years to the end of your life or do you prefer to allow a great many others to live? Personally even if GMO and others took a decade from me (I have seen no evidence this is the case. Humans are living longer lives than ever before.) if it allows more children to eat I support it. [0]https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2014-12-18-at-3.37.22-PM.png https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/20... [1]http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-inco...
pjc50 10y ago
> stuff that is natural is time-tested This also applies to tobacco.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  It does, but not really to smoking. Tobacco is far safer chewed or insufflated than smoked, and cigarettes have a bunch of additional terrible chemicals in them.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It is not in fact safe to chew tobacco.
    - petre 10y ago
      You can get gum and other mouth cancers.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    Any burning organic matter will contain carcinogens. Breathing a constant supply of wood smoke will wreak havoc on one's lungs. I'd be curious to find out if there's any place with a history of consumption of fresh tobacco leaves as a food item.
    - sjg007 10y ago
      No. You would get tobacco sickness.
lambdadmitry 10y ago
>stuff that is natural is time-tested Unfortunately "time" doesn't test for cancerogenicity, as laypeople are terrible at inferring causality that may span months or years. Case in point [1]: several "herbal remedies" used in China for hundreds of years are linked to kidney failure and kidney cancer. We don't know if something is dangerous until we deliberately and scientifically test it. Given that "non-natural" stuff (e.g. GMO) is thoroughly tested, I would expect that it's way safer than "natural" one that was never really tested. [1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1343598/Chinese-herb-remedy-linked-with-cancer-of-the-kidneys.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1343598/Chinese-herb-...
tptacek 10y ago
This is a fallacy. All sorts of things are time-tested, in some cases over a millennium, and turn out to be carcinogenic: lutefisk, for instance, or the scalding hot tea Iranians drink.
- shriphani 10y ago
  I'm talking conditional probabilities here. Conditioned on the natural, our track record isn't bad. Conditioned on synthetic substances, just in the last century we have thalidomide, high-fructose corn syrup and this wonderful collection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Withdrawn_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Withdrawn_drugs
0xfeba 10y ago
> Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe The food we consume now has little resemblance past a visual one (and even not that in some cases), to food of the past. Time-tested? Only in the past 60 years or so have we actually been able to begin to understand the effects of any food, natural or GMO. That our ancestors didn't keel over immediately after consuming these "same" foods does not mean they are anymore "safe to consume" than GMO foods.
- rhizome 10y ago
  The food we consume now has little resemblance past a visual one (and even not that in some cases), to food of the past. When did strawberries change?
  - lkbm 10y ago
    Looks like we first cultivated "garden strawberries" in 1714[1]. Before that we just had "wild strawberries", which are small and not very sweet. I don't know now they've changed nutritionally (probably more sugar), and I doubt they've changed chemically. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry
- Tycho 10y ago
  > That our ancestors didn't keel over immediately after consuming these "same" foods does not mean they are anymore "safe to consume" than GMO foods. I think this is the wrongest statement I've ever read on HN.

sametmax 10y ago

Particularly, they have been time-tested in a complex system. Our tests are not only limited in time, but also in complexity. Scientists take a sample of subjects in a defined environment. The benefit of that is that they can draw definitive conclusions because of the manageable variables. The problem with it is that you fail to see the big picture, the many interactions with the numerous components of a real life activity, and on the long run. When talking about living things and food, or in that case, living things that are food, the context is incredibly important to define what is safe or not.

bojan 10y ago

Is it really (time-)tested? How do we know what is safe to consume, especially long-term? We don't really have proper data to support most claims. We did not track and log the causes of death throughout the vast majority of our history.

cmdrfred 10y ago

>Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe to consume. Its not so simple. When you consider the significantly lower yields of organic farming[0], combined with a growing world population 71% of which lives on less than $10 a day[1] that will not be able to afford these increased food costs you are left with a question. Do you prefer to add perhaps a few years to the end of your life or do you prefer to allow a great many others to live? Personally even if GMO and others took a decade from me (I have seen no evidence this is the case. Humans are living longer lives than ever before.) if it allows more children to eat I support it. [0]https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2014-12-18-at-3.37.22-PM.png https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/20... [1]http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-inco...

pjc50 10y ago

> stuff that is natural is time-tested This also applies to tobacco.

AstralStorm 10y ago
It does, but not really to smoking. Tobacco is far safer chewed or insufflated than smoked, and cigarettes have a bunch of additional terrible chemicals in them.
- tptacek 10y ago
  It is not in fact safe to chew tobacco.
  - petre 10y ago
    You can get gum and other mouth cancers.
- LordKano 10y ago
  Any burning organic matter will contain carcinogens. Breathing a constant supply of wood smoke will wreak havoc on one's lungs. I'd be curious to find out if there's any place with a history of consumption of fresh tobacco leaves as a food item.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    No. You would get tobacco sickness.

lambdadmitry 10y ago

>stuff that is natural is time-tested Unfortunately "time" doesn't test for cancerogenicity, as laypeople are terrible at inferring causality that may span months or years. Case in point [1]: several "herbal remedies" used in China for hundreds of years are linked to kidney failure and kidney cancer. We don't know if something is dangerous until we deliberately and scientifically test it. Given that "non-natural" stuff (e.g. GMO) is thoroughly tested, I would expect that it's way safer than "natural" one that was never really tested. [1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1343598/Chinese-herb-remedy-linked-with-cancer-of-the-kidneys.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1343598/Chinese-herb-...

tptacek 10y ago

This is a fallacy. All sorts of things are time-tested, in some cases over a millennium, and turn out to be carcinogenic: lutefisk, for instance, or the scalding hot tea Iranians drink.

shriphani 10y ago
I'm talking conditional probabilities here. Conditioned on the natural, our track record isn't bad. Conditioned on synthetic substances, just in the last century we have thalidomide, high-fructose corn syrup and this wonderful collection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Withdrawn_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Withdrawn_drugs

0xfeba 10y ago

> Food we've grown + consumed has a multi-millennium history of being safe The food we consume now has little resemblance past a visual one (and even not that in some cases), to food of the past. Time-tested? Only in the past 60 years or so have we actually been able to begin to understand the effects of any food, natural or GMO. That our ancestors didn't keel over immediately after consuming these "same" foods does not mean they are anymore "safe to consume" than GMO foods.

rhizome 10y ago
The food we consume now has little resemblance past a visual one (and even not that in some cases), to food of the past. When did strawberries change?
- lkbm 10y ago
  Looks like we first cultivated "garden strawberries" in 1714[1]. Before that we just had "wild strawberries", which are small and not very sweet. I don't know now they've changed nutritionally (probably more sugar), and I doubt they've changed chemically. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry
Tycho 10y ago
> That our ancestors didn't keel over immediately after consuming these "same" foods does not mean they are anymore "safe to consume" than GMO foods. I think this is the wrongest statement I've ever read on HN.