> Maybe there is some ethical concern about testing a hypothesis that includes harm to humans, but at the same time, many people are already eating this stuff.

> Maybe there is some ethical concern about testing a hypothesis that includes harm to humans, but at the same time, many people are already eating this stuff. People are already eating this stuff, so it’s obviously not “drop dead dangerous”. In order to test it, we’d either need to change dosage/frequency or try some longitudinal study by tracking what people eat more exhaustively. Increasing dosage/frequency can make something “drop dead dangerous”, which is where the ethical qualms arise. Doing a long term longitudinal study is just really hard to draw statistically significant outcomes considering the variety we eat and the massive amount of bad things in the world. I agree with the central point that testing legal things (for public safety) is a thing we may need to do.