When people defend chemicals saying what's the evidence, they're only doing harm to themselves and everyone. We did not evolve to tolerate quite literally hund

When people defend chemicals saying what's the evidence, they're only doing harm to themselves and everyone. We did not evolve to tolerate quite literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals in regular commercial use. The incidence of several different disease types is increasing at far higher rates than "increased diagnosis". The number of people with GI symptoms related to food is something absurd like 1 in 3 now. If you did not EVOLVE to tolerate a chemical, you're gambling with how it will be interpreted by the body's biology. Even with medicine we cause issues ALL the time when we're TRYING not to make drugs that actively harm you. The majority of these chemicals are NOT subject to that kind of scrutiny, even though many of them STILL get into people's systems. Yes, the dose makes the poison, but we DON'T EVEN KNOW the dose-response curve for the vast majority of commercially used chemicals, nor do we know their interactions. The likelihood of some of them causing physiologic or epigenetic harm in humans is basically 100%. We do need WAY more scrutiny than we have and to withdraw way more things from commercial use BY force if we want to turn things around. If you say "where's the evidence they cause damage" you're an armchair devil's advocate redditor moron. The onus should be on them to rigorously show they DO NOT cause harm before they're ever introduced into use that could lead to exopsure.