3 ms·
To be honest it’s very unclear to me why we hold medicine to the standard of “demonstrably more helpful than harmful” but we hold the material your pill bottle
by AbrahamParangi 3y ago
To be honest it’s very unclear to me why we hold medicine to the standard of “demonstrably more helpful than harmful” but we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty”.
I can’t help but think that’s an oversight from lack of imagination and lack of intuitive understanding of how much leaching and abrading goes on.
- refurb 3y agobut we hold the material your pill bottle is made out of to the standards of “innocent until proven guilty” No they don't. Drug packaging is regulated too. It's tested for leeching, stability, etc. I'm starting to get the feeling that many people are upset in this thread because they don't actually know what the current regulations are.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoThere are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". The practical implication is that your bloodstream is filled with relatively few small-molecule drugs and relatively many synthetic chemicals.
- refurb 3y agoThere are regulations on quite a number of things but the evidentiary standards are not equal because a treatment has to demonstrate a health benefit whereas a packaging additive just has to "demonstrate an absence of harm" which is actually a lax criteria because proving a negative is inherently "impossible". That makes no sense. Of course a "packaging additive" only has to prove a lack of harm. What else would you prove?