5 ms·

The burden of proof should obviously be reversed! Complex, synthetic chemicals in our water, food, packaging, or furniture should be assumed harmful and disall

The burden of proof should obviously be reversed! Complex, synthetic chemicals in our water, food, packaging, or furniture should be assumed harmful and disallowed until it there is sufficient evidence that they are safe. Escalating trials basically. This is what we do for pharmaceutical drugs that we ingest or contact, why don't take this approach with other man-made chemicals we are adding to our immediate ecosystem and bodies. the history of flame retardants is instructive https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2013/11/21/its-official-toxic-flame-retardants-no-longer-required-in-furniture/ https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2013/11/21/its-official-toxic-f... if industry/government had been required to prove these things safe beforehand we would have never exposed the population them in the first place.

kazinator 9y ago
I completely agree with you, but since we have all these materials used in a myriad ways, and it's not practical to just stop using all of them cold turkey, it would really be useful to figure out exactly which stuff is doing what harm and how.
highd 9y ago
Our diet is full of fruits and vegetables containing thousands of complex chemicals, indistinguishable from "synthetic" chemicals, that have entered our diet far too short a time ago to have had evolutionary impact. If one wanted they could surely distill many chemicals in isolation from these naturally occurring fruits and vegetables that in concentration would have many concerning health effects. The fact that many don't worry about this is largely because this research program has not been attempted. Point being, there is no reason to hold any of these chemicals to a standard higher than that of a strawberry - that is, we can give people a bunch of strawberries and say any negative effect is below some acceptable level. And, in fact, we have found many "natural" foods containing absurdly high levels of arsenic and other dangerous compounds, and that has affected their preparation for consumption. The scientific process has in this way even outperformed the naturalism heuristic.
- cryoshon 9y ago
  >Point being, there is no reason to hold any of these chemicals to a standard higher than that of a strawberry - that is, we can give people a bunch of strawberries and say any negative effect is below some acceptable level. ah yes, the logic that brought us Silent Spring and the children happily playing and breathing in clouds of "safe" DDT gas. if it's from a plant or animal, it can still be plenty harmful, but at least there's a history of use without major effects. not the case with industrial chemicals...
- evincarofautumn 9y ago
  This is, I’ve found, a good way to start a dialogue with people about chemophobia. If you ask someone “Which do you think is safer: artificial vanilla or vanilla extract?” they’ll often prefer the “natural” one. But vanilla extract contains exactly the same chemical (vanillin) in addition to hundreds of other compounds, many of which are known to be irritants, hepatotoxins, and carcinogens—in high enough doses. Of course, it’s much harder to break people of the misconception that the provenance of a chemical (synthetic or natural) matters. There seems to be some kind of innate protective disgust reaction at work. For instance, I’ve had conversations with people who say they wouldn’t be able to bring themselves to drink a glass of water if they knew it was purified from sewage. By the same token, they will drink some water that’s been imbued with some healing power by a homeopath.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Of course, it’s much harder to break people of the misconception that the provenance of a chemical (synthetic or natural) matters. If one uses contrived arguments like the one about vanilla extract, then I can see why.
    - evincarofautumn 9y ago
      Well…of course it’s contrived. Like I said, it’s a conversation starter to make people think more critically about what they mean by “natural”, “synthetic”, “safe”, and “dangerous” chemicals. What I was getting at is that in my experience, people are generally pretty open to rational discussion about that, but not about the underlying visceral squeamishness and distrust.
specialist 9y ago
Freedoms Markets™ trumps the Hippocratic Oath. --- As I get older, more grumpy: The single most disappointing, surprising thing to me has been the persistent, tenacious, aggressive, recurring amnesia, credulity, and willful ignorance. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 1,000 more times, yes please, sir, may I have another. (h/t frat hazing scene in Animal House.) I really thought people would get smarter over time. From operant conditioning, if nothing else. Lead in gasoline, cigarettes, BPA, CO2, freon, etc, etc. With every new outrage, the peanut gallery pipes up with the same old dumb ass excuses. And inevitably, the perpetrators KNEW, for DECADES, they were doing harm and actively suppress the knowledge. Merchants of Doubt. Rinse, lather, repeat. But, no, not this time. You can't just assume the same bad guys with the same incentives would LIE to us. Again. I'm shocked, shocked you'd suggest anyone would put profits before people.

kazinator 9y ago

I completely agree with you, but since we have all these materials used in a myriad ways, and it's not practical to just stop using all of them cold turkey, it would really be useful to figure out exactly which stuff is doing what harm and how.

highd 9y ago

Our diet is full of fruits and vegetables containing thousands of complex chemicals, indistinguishable from "synthetic" chemicals, that have entered our diet far too short a time ago to have had evolutionary impact. If one wanted they could surely distill many chemicals in isolation from these naturally occurring fruits and vegetables that in concentration would have many concerning health effects. The fact that many don't worry about this is largely because this research program has not been attempted. Point being, there is no reason to hold any of these chemicals to a standard higher than that of a strawberry - that is, we can give people a bunch of strawberries and say any negative effect is below some acceptable level. And, in fact, we have found many "natural" foods containing absurdly high levels of arsenic and other dangerous compounds, and that has affected their preparation for consumption. The scientific process has in this way even outperformed the naturalism heuristic.

cryoshon 9y ago
>Point being, there is no reason to hold any of these chemicals to a standard higher than that of a strawberry - that is, we can give people a bunch of strawberries and say any negative effect is below some acceptable level. ah yes, the logic that brought us Silent Spring and the children happily playing and breathing in clouds of "safe" DDT gas. if it's from a plant or animal, it can still be plenty harmful, but at least there's a history of use without major effects. not the case with industrial chemicals...
evincarofautumn 9y ago
This is, I’ve found, a good way to start a dialogue with people about chemophobia. If you ask someone “Which do you think is safer: artificial vanilla or vanilla extract?” they’ll often prefer the “natural” one. But vanilla extract contains exactly the same chemical (vanillin) in addition to hundreds of other compounds, many of which are known to be irritants, hepatotoxins, and carcinogens—in high enough doses. Of course, it’s much harder to break people of the misconception that the provenance of a chemical (synthetic or natural) matters. There seems to be some kind of innate protective disgust reaction at work. For instance, I’ve had conversations with people who say they wouldn’t be able to bring themselves to drink a glass of water if they knew it was purified from sewage. By the same token, they will drink some water that’s been imbued with some healing power by a homeopath.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Of course, it’s much harder to break people of the misconception that the provenance of a chemical (synthetic or natural) matters. If one uses contrived arguments like the one about vanilla extract, then I can see why.
  - evincarofautumn 9y ago
    Well…of course it’s contrived. Like I said, it’s a conversation starter to make people think more critically about what they mean by “natural”, “synthetic”, “safe”, and “dangerous” chemicals. What I was getting at is that in my experience, people are generally pretty open to rational discussion about that, but not about the underlying visceral squeamishness and distrust.

specialist 9y ago

Freedoms Markets™ trumps the Hippocratic Oath. --- As I get older, more grumpy: The single most disappointing, surprising thing to me has been the persistent, tenacious, aggressive, recurring amnesia, credulity, and willful ignorance. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 1,000 more times, yes please, sir, may I have another. (h/t frat hazing scene in Animal House.) I really thought people would get smarter over time. From operant conditioning, if nothing else. Lead in gasoline, cigarettes, BPA, CO2, freon, etc, etc. With every new outrage, the peanut gallery pipes up with the same old dumb ass excuses. And inevitably, the perpetrators KNEW, for DECADES, they were doing harm and actively suppress the knowledge. Merchants of Doubt. Rinse, lather, repeat. But, no, not this time. You can't just assume the same bad guys with the same incentives would LIE to us. Again. I'm shocked, shocked you'd suggest anyone would put profits before people.