3 ms·
If you're ultimately just looking for stricter standards before introducing something new (regardless of source) to the food supply, I could totally go for that
by mikeash 9y ago
If you're ultimately just looking for stricter standards before introducing something new (regardless of source) to the food supply, I could totally go for that. It's a tough question. I'm not sure if we can really call something "safe" with less than a century of testing, but I'm not sure if it's reasonable to require that. Maybe it is, do we really need new stuff in our food?
- mirimir 9y agoYes, that was my point :) Because it's very hard to prove negatives like "not harmful". In that there are just too many ways in which stuff can be harmful. So at best, FDA excludes the obviously-toxic stuff, and the rest is assumed safe, until there's evidence that it's not. And yes, I don't want new stuff in my food. I avoid processed food, and prefer local "organic" (hate the word, but whatever) sources.