5 ms·

Lab tests of 100 mice over a few weeks seem insufficient to get data on safety of something we want to feed to 100 million people for an 80 year lifespan. Sure

Lab tests of 100 mice over a few weeks seem insufficient to get data on safety of something we want to feed to 100 million people for an 80 year lifespan. Sure - in the lab experiment, the dosage is higher. But plenty of things are dangerous after time, or only for a very tiny fraction of people. Plenty of things might have effects that aren't routinely measured in mice (eg. this additive makes your eyesight worse, or that additive makes you dumber). What can be done to close this gap?

londons_explore 3y ago
Do large scale passive human studies. Do the studies based on credit card data being directly linked to ingredients lists of products purchased. If people consuming more of an ingredient end up performing worse at school, involved in more crime, having more sick days, or dying younger, then the government should spring into action and ban/restrict it pending a proper controlled study. A special government department should be set up to handle and analyze this (very private) data, firewalled off from the rest of government. It's worth it to make millions of peoples lives healthier.
- dekhn 3y ago
  It seems extremely unlikely this would happen- both because of lack of political will, and because this would be considered a huge intrusion into people's privacy.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > this would be considered a huge intrusion into people's privacy. It _would be_ a huge intrusion into people's privacy.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    But if told "you can either get cancer and die at age 65, or live to 85 if you are happy for scientists to look at what you eat and drink", the vast majority of people would choose the latter.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      What's actually offered is "you can get cancer and die at age 65 either way but if you let us take notes we might not poison your grandkids the same way," and that's much less convincing.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >or live to 85 if you are happy for scientists to look at what you eat and drink But we don't know that's true with anywhere near degree of certainly. Pretending that it is borderline lying and only serves to weaken trust in institutions.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      You are almost certainly underestimating just how much opposition there would be to this if the government tried to do it. I worked in health-adjacent fields for several decades and it took me quite some time to recognize that some of the best ideas for public health are simply non-viable due to political opposition, and "have the government set up an epidemiological wing that does data science on private data to improve health" is definitely one of them.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      “You can either die of obesity related complications early or eat healthy”. Many many many pick obesity.
- coding123 3y ago
  nanny state
- gruez 3y ago
  This is basically a cohort study. How do you account for the usual issues of cohort studies? eg. having bad eating habits (in general) is bad for your health and people with bad eating habits also tend to eat more artificially colored products?
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Correct for it as best as possible (eg. by correcting for every demographic factor you can), and then for results that still look promising, do actual controlled studies - eg. "contact mcdonalds and get them to halve the amount of additive X in food they serve in any zip code ending in an even digit". If additive X still looks like it's doing harm when the data from the controlled study comes in, ban it.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      The controlled studies are expensive, and almost never actually get done. Which is why most diet related science is so bad.
      - londons_explore 3y ago
        But as a government, you can force the biggest users of an additive to do a controlled study by a deadline date or have authority to use the substance at all in food revoked.
        gruez 3y ago
        But in this case it seems like confounders is guaranteed to turn up a massive amount of false positives. Forcing companies to fund said studies on shaky evidence seems arbitrary and unfair.

londons_explore 3y ago

Do large scale passive human studies. Do the studies based on credit card data being directly linked to ingredients lists of products purchased. If people consuming more of an ingredient end up performing worse at school, involved in more crime, having more sick days, or dying younger, then the government should spring into action and ban/restrict it pending a proper controlled study. A special government department should be set up to handle and analyze this (very private) data, firewalled off from the rest of government. It's worth it to make millions of peoples lives healthier.

dekhn 3y ago
It seems extremely unlikely this would happen- both because of lack of political will, and because this would be considered a huge intrusion into people's privacy.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > this would be considered a huge intrusion into people's privacy. It _would be_ a huge intrusion into people's privacy.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  But if told "you can either get cancer and die at age 65, or live to 85 if you are happy for scientists to look at what you eat and drink", the vast majority of people would choose the latter.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    What's actually offered is "you can get cancer and die at age 65 either way but if you let us take notes we might not poison your grandkids the same way," and that's much less convincing.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >or live to 85 if you are happy for scientists to look at what you eat and drink But we don't know that's true with anywhere near degree of certainly. Pretending that it is borderline lying and only serves to weaken trust in institutions.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    You are almost certainly underestimating just how much opposition there would be to this if the government tried to do it. I worked in health-adjacent fields for several decades and it took me quite some time to recognize that some of the best ideas for public health are simply non-viable due to political opposition, and "have the government set up an epidemiological wing that does data science on private data to improve health" is definitely one of them.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    “You can either die of obesity related complications early or eat healthy”. Many many many pick obesity.
coding123 3y ago
nanny state
gruez 3y ago
This is basically a cohort study. How do you account for the usual issues of cohort studies? eg. having bad eating habits (in general) is bad for your health and people with bad eating habits also tend to eat more artificially colored products?
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Correct for it as best as possible (eg. by correcting for every demographic factor you can), and then for results that still look promising, do actual controlled studies - eg. "contact mcdonalds and get them to halve the amount of additive X in food they serve in any zip code ending in an even digit". If additive X still looks like it's doing harm when the data from the controlled study comes in, ban it.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    The controlled studies are expensive, and almost never actually get done. Which is why most diet related science is so bad.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      But as a government, you can force the biggest users of an additive to do a controlled study by a deadline date or have authority to use the substance at all in food revoked.
      - gruez 3y ago
        But in this case it seems like confounders is guaranteed to turn up a massive amount of false positives. Forcing companies to fund said studies on shaky evidence seems arbitrary and unfair.