> I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely ex

> I don't think it's a fallacy to conclude generally that consuming plants which coevolved with humans is safer than consuming chemicals which are completely exogenous to any stage of the human body's development. An optimal organism doesn't imply an optimal environment. fitness(org, food) = -2 org^2 + org * food + 7 If evolution had optimized fitness by adjusting "org" while keeping "food" constant, that wouldn't imply holding "org" constant and changing "food" wouldn't yield improvement. Evolution doesn't optimize the environment for the organism. Evolution performs stochastic gradient descent, improving the organism for the environment, which can easily get stuck at global optima. More importantly, it improves the organism for the environment/food/etc. The idea that the food is optimal for the organism gets the improvement mechanism backward.