4 ms·

>If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the

>If you were forced to choose between eating 100g of a random "chemical" molecule, or 100g of a random "natural" molecule, you would be much better off with the latter. Here, have a delicious puffer fish. I prepared it myself! Rating chemicals by whether or not they occur naturally is a really piss-poor way of judging danger. There is a practically unlimited number of naturally occurring chemicals what will knock you dead, and there are similarly tones of synthesized chemicals that are completely harmless, or even beneficial. Bringing "synthesized vs. naturally" is always disingenuous, we have had better ways of judging danger since the dark ages.

ced 16y ago
You make a good point, though I wish you hadn't called mine retarded. we have had better ways of judging danger since the dark ages. That's true. And if you trust scientists and the FDA to do their jobs, you're all set. But what if you don't? Let's say that I'm at the supermarket in a small, poor country with a corrupt FDA, and I want to buy some juice. Well, I'm going to favor those brands with natural ingredients (and hope that the ingredient list is correct). Maybe that's a stupid move, but it has served me well so far.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  "You make a good point, though I wish you hadn't called mine retarded." Apologies, I sometimes forget some people find that word particularly offensive.
  - ced 16y ago
    No problem! In fairness, this "pick a random chemical component" idea was at least moderately retarded, and most worthy of criticism.
code_duck 16y ago
I think this comes up because natural substances tend to have a longer history of usage. I'd take a natural additive that has been generally proven safe by 500 years of human history over a synthetic chemical that was (supposedly) shown to be reasonably safe through 5 years of lab testing.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Until very recently lead and mercury were commonly considered to be swell things to ingest as medicine. With the exception of "these berries taste good and these berries will kill you"^, history of human consumption is a pretty bad thing to go by. ^ and they even messed this up on occasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#History
  - code_duck 16y ago
    At least we have a long history of data on which to base conclusions. Unlike some of the stuff Monsanto is eager to spray on your food, lead wasn't invented in a lab last year. And see how long it took for the harmful effects to become apparent? Longer than a FDA testing cycle, definitely! As for tomatoes, there was a serious lack of information regarding many topics in Europe at that time. Did the people living in lands to which the tomato is indigenous suffer from that misperception? Anyway, the point is to analyze these substances based on what we know now, not what someone thought 250 years ago.
  - hartror 16y ago
    To ingest, use as cosmetics . . you name it they tried it. A long history of use is neither a sign of safety or efficacy, but try telling the non scientific public that.
  - Retric 16y ago
    Lead, mercury, and Tobaco where known to be unsafe before I was born. That's a fairly long time from my perspective. Also, in the short term they are reasonably safe. It's only because we can look at long term exposure that we understand how harmful these things are.
  - khafra 16y ago
    I personally wish the FDA "Generally Regarded as Safe" list were more well-known. I think "GRAS" would make a good replacement for "natural."
    - 16y ago

ced 16y ago

You make a good point, though I wish you hadn't called mine retarded. we have had better ways of judging danger since the dark ages. That's true. And if you trust scientists and the FDA to do their jobs, you're all set. But what if you don't? Let's say that I'm at the supermarket in a small, poor country with a corrupt FDA, and I want to buy some juice. Well, I'm going to favor those brands with natural ingredients (and hope that the ingredient list is correct). Maybe that's a stupid move, but it has served me well so far.

burgerbrain 16y ago
"You make a good point, though I wish you hadn't called mine retarded." Apologies, I sometimes forget some people find that word particularly offensive.
- ced 16y ago
  No problem! In fairness, this "pick a random chemical component" idea was at least moderately retarded, and most worthy of criticism.

code_duck 16y ago

I think this comes up because natural substances tend to have a longer history of usage. I'd take a natural additive that has been generally proven safe by 500 years of human history over a synthetic chemical that was (supposedly) shown to be reasonably safe through 5 years of lab testing.

burgerbrain 16y ago
Until very recently lead and mercury were commonly considered to be swell things to ingest as medicine. With the exception of "these berries taste good and these berries will kill you"^, history of human consumption is a pretty bad thing to go by. ^ and they even messed this up on occasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#History
- code_duck 16y ago
  At least we have a long history of data on which to base conclusions. Unlike some of the stuff Monsanto is eager to spray on your food, lead wasn't invented in a lab last year. And see how long it took for the harmful effects to become apparent? Longer than a FDA testing cycle, definitely! As for tomatoes, there was a serious lack of information regarding many topics in Europe at that time. Did the people living in lands to which the tomato is indigenous suffer from that misperception? Anyway, the point is to analyze these substances based on what we know now, not what someone thought 250 years ago.
- hartror 16y ago
  To ingest, use as cosmetics . . you name it they tried it. A long history of use is neither a sign of safety or efficacy, but try telling the non scientific public that.
- Retric 16y ago
  Lead, mercury, and Tobaco where known to be unsafe before I was born. That's a fairly long time from my perspective. Also, in the short term they are reasonably safe. It's only because we can look at long term exposure that we understand how harmful these things are.
- khafra 16y ago
  I personally wish the FDA "Generally Regarded as Safe" list were more well-known. I think "GRAS" would make a good replacement for "natural."
  - 16y ago