The other part is the assumption that "natural" molcules are inherently better. I wouldn't say "inherently better", but... Through evolution, we've adapted to

The other part is the assumption that "natural" molcules are inherently better. I wouldn't say "inherently better", but... Through evolution, we've adapted to molecules present in the environment, and because other organisms have similar tolerance to toxins, eating them is usually safer than eating a random substance. It's just a heuristic, of course, reasonable people may disagree. I was just pointing out that the OP's position is not "obviously dumb". I disagree that it's reasonable to be wary of chemicals - it's a triumph of rubbish marketing. It goes both way: companies producing artificial products (including drugs) have massive advertising budgets, but there's no ad touting the merits of oranges and tap water. Honest question: if I find a new mammalian species and try to sell its meat, do I need FDA approval? EDIT: In your top post, you're objecting to the man's argument that "it's natural therefore it's safe". I agree with you that it's naive in this context. I guess I misread your post and argued against something else :/