4 ms·

> Despite this, the effects in humans were estimated by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to be similar to risks posed by breathing indoor air or drinki

> Despite this, the effects in humans were estimated by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to be similar to risks posed by breathing indoor air or drinking municipally supplied water. https://cpdb.thomas-slone.org/pdfs/herp.pdf https://cpdb.thomas-slone.org/pdfs/herp.pdf Ask yourself why you’re specifically invested in this chemical being harmful even though the actual scientific evidence and its prodigious use over thousands of years by indigenous peoples indicates that it is harmless. You are speaking like someone who values science, but your primary goal seems to be to reinforce an unscientific regulation. Is it so painful to consider that you (and the scientific establishment) were just wrong about this? Please cite your sources, since you are making claims contrary to established research.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
This source you gave is about carcinogenicity not neurotoxicity. I don't appreciate you suggesting I have some kind of ulterior motive or bias. I don't care if sassafras oil is legal or not, it doesn't matter to me. I do value science, and the fact that a culture has used a substance for a long time does not somehow preclude the notion that it could have toxic effects. Unless you want to argue that ethanol can't damage your liver either. Nor does the ruling out of one toxic effect preclude other mechanisms of toxicity. Induction of neuronal apoptosis in mice: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17188719/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17188719/ Inhibition of (human!) immune system: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12608906/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12608906/ None of these seem related to the metabolite that doesn't appear in humans.
- gilrain 4y ago
  Thank you! Now that you’ve provided sources, I can evaluate your claim. You’ll have to forgive me for treating you as unscientific — you began this debate by being “pretty sure” about something which was a chronological impossibility. That sort of hubris often indicates that science-ish misinformation is incoming. Thanks to your links, I found a better summary of the current health research on safrole: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerpreventionresearch/article/8/1/1/50342/Toxic-Phytochemicals-and-Their-Potential-Risks-for https://aacrjournals.org/cancerpreventionresearch/article/8/... If you search within that for safrole, a very thorough summary with many citations is provided. I’ve come away better informed, and will continue making root beer with confidence (the health concerns listed are slight; almost everything is similarly “dangerous”).
- gilrain 4y ago
  > the fact that a culture has used a substance for a long time does not somehow preclude the notion that it could have toxic effects It doesn’t preclude it, but it absolutely suggests that a reasonable default assumption is that it is safe when used the same way. Note that I’m not talking about some obscure, minor use. Hoja Santa, for instance, is used very widely across southern and central Mexico for wrapping food (infusing it with safrole), in soups, beverages, etc. It’s a beloved, signature flavor.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

This source you gave is about carcinogenicity not neurotoxicity. I don't appreciate you suggesting I have some kind of ulterior motive or bias. I don't care if sassafras oil is legal or not, it doesn't matter to me. I do value science, and the fact that a culture has used a substance for a long time does not somehow preclude the notion that it could have toxic effects. Unless you want to argue that ethanol can't damage your liver either. Nor does the ruling out of one toxic effect preclude other mechanisms of toxicity. Induction of neuronal apoptosis in mice: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17188719/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17188719/ Inhibition of (human!) immune system: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12608906/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12608906/ None of these seem related to the metabolite that doesn't appear in humans.

gilrain 4y ago
Thank you! Now that you’ve provided sources, I can evaluate your claim. You’ll have to forgive me for treating you as unscientific — you began this debate by being “pretty sure” about something which was a chronological impossibility. That sort of hubris often indicates that science-ish misinformation is incoming. Thanks to your links, I found a better summary of the current health research on safrole: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerpreventionresearch/article/8/1/1/50342/Toxic-Phytochemicals-and-Their-Potential-Risks-for https://aacrjournals.org/cancerpreventionresearch/article/8/... If you search within that for safrole, a very thorough summary with many citations is provided. I’ve come away better informed, and will continue making root beer with confidence (the health concerns listed are slight; almost everything is similarly “dangerous”).
gilrain 4y ago
> the fact that a culture has used a substance for a long time does not somehow preclude the notion that it could have toxic effects It doesn’t preclude it, but it absolutely suggests that a reasonable default assumption is that it is safe when used the same way. Note that I’m not talking about some obscure, minor use. Hoja Santa, for instance, is used very widely across southern and central Mexico for wrapping food (infusing it with safrole), in soups, beverages, etc. It’s a beloved, signature flavor.