5 ms·
> There is no evidence for this, and no good reason to assume so I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a
by titzer 8y ago
> There is no evidence for this, and no good reason to assume so
I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a glass full of unknown chemical X and survive 24 hours before you spray it on food that other people eat and/or insert it directly into the foodchain. Wanna play?
It's not scare tactics to be careful with food specifically and the ecosystem in general. You see, we now have the science to actually do experiments and test things for safety before industry belches out thousands or millions of tons of the stuff into the foodchain, whereas 100 years ago we did not. IMO it is actually irresponsible to not do so. What we lack is the political will, and default positions like yours are not helpful.
In my very honest opinion, 100% serious--I think it's entirely reasonable to require proof of safety before society grants you permission to inject your newly designed chemicals into the food chain.
- Natsu 8y ago> I'm gonna invite you to a game called the Pepsi challenge, wherein you're obliged to imbibe a glass full of unknown chemical X and survive 24 hours before you spray it on food that other people eat and/or insert it directly into the foodchain. Wanna play? We play that every day when we eat food and drink water. Literally everything we eat is made of chemicals. We simply know more about the man made ones so we can study and learn about any dangers. Would you be concerned about drinking malic acid, quinic acid, shikimic acid, and fumaric acid? Did you know about any of those when you first drank apple juice?
- klmr 8y agoThis is a silly game and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual process of approving ingredients for food safety. That process is far from perfect but — in the case of glyphosate — it worked very well. > It's not scare tactics to be careful with food specifically and the ecosystem in general Correct. But it’s a scare tactic to ignore the existing evidence to claim unfounded effects, or to mention “chemicals” to stir up panic.
- ethbro 8y agoBoth of you are right. The only thing I'd add is that there's absolutely a huge weight in the form of industry pressure sitting on the scales. E.g. efforts to limit antibiotic use in food animal production. And it's fair to say that swamps regulations that would otherwise be passed.
- brandonmenc 8y agoA glass of pure caffeine would kill you. Probably any single compound naturally present in fruits and vegetables would kill you if you drank a concentrated, purified cup of it.
- fggcc 8y agoList of things in fruit that, if consumed pure, wouldn’t kill me (a cup): 1. Water 2. Fiber 3. Sugar (that would hurt though) 4. Protein Yes, trace amounts of essential oils would kill me if purified and I drank a cup of it. But be precise! Also, we’ve co-evolved with essential oils in plants. We haven’t co-evolved with synthetic chemicals. Therefore, synthetic analogies can be expected to behave in a similar but devastatingly different manner (nicotine, vs nicotine-like. Natural vs. synthetic insulin, etc)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- titzer 8y agoOf course we all know this. I intentionally hyperbolized.