6 ms·

The crazy thing about the process is even when there is a strong suspicion the chemical is NOT safe companies still were allowed to sell products with it for de

by dzdt 3y ago

The crazy thing about the process is even when there is a strong suspicion the chemical is NOT safe companies still were allowed to sell products with it for decades, until it was PROVEN to be not safe. One can imagine a system where it was required to prove safety before use instead of the other way round, but that is not what we have.

RajT88 3y ago
GRAS certification offers some clues on how this happened. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generall...
brutusborn 3y ago
Apologies for being pedantic, but you can’t prove safety in the same way that you can’t prove any hypothesis. I agree that new chemicals should undergo better safety screenings, but we must be honest with ourselves: a screening does not “prove” something is safe, it merely reduces the uncertainty that it is safe. As such, we must balance the costs and benefits of such testing regimes.
- colordrops 3y ago
  I'm reading the GP as not meaning "prove" as in a mathematical proof with absolute certainty, but rather that a rigorous process is followed to allow a new chemical in food, similar to vaccines and medicine.
  - nickserv 3y ago
    Yes, but how rigorous? Some chemicals are only toxic when combined with others. Some may require years or even decades of exposure to show signs of toxicity. Some only affect a percentage of the population. Etc etc. The reality is that it's basically impossible to prove absolute safety. Perhaps it's better to assume there is always a risk, and to only a chemical if there is a really important reason for it, even if tested. So something like non-stick pans would be out.
    - oezi 3y ago
      They should use a similar process as with pharmaceuticals: Phase 1, 2 trials to show safety and then a rigorous post-market surveillance. If this means new chemicals cost 1bn USD to bring to market then yes, this is a reflection of the true cost of these products. We can't continue letting greedy corporations poison us just for the benefit of their shareholders.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      It may not need to be as rigorous as a vaccine or medicine, but that doesn't mean there should be no process. All that is needed for humans to survive and thrive robustly is already available. There is no excuse for new chemical to be introduced for the benefit of profit. It should be on the seller to prove the chemical is relatively safe rather than the public to prove it is not safe. It would be great if non-stick pans were never invented.
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    Absolutely. Proof is based on a specific criteria. It doesn't mean that the thing you are proving is 100% guaranteed. Similar to Trump's warpspeed program. There was a specific criteria of a side effect profile that was acceptable. I don't know what that criteria was, but it was definitely there.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I know, but this usage lulls people into a false sense of security because it’s “proven” to be safe. I think it’s important to differentiate when discussing safety and risk. I can’t think of a better word, maybe safety “testing”, since this implies that the result hinges on the quality of the test and generally people are aware of the limitations of tests.
- isoprophlex 3y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you but in this case it's adding the most unnatural weird ass shit to soda for no really good reasons. Any chemist looks at "brominated vegetable oil" and they'll tell you to chuck it into the waste container labeled "halogen rich organics" -- you know, the one waste container organic labs have to collect stuff thats Really Not Supposed to end up in living things. You don't really need a safety assessment to intuit that this is just a grossly weird thing to put in a drink.
  - djtango 3y ago
    I was a Chemist and the only thing I can say sadly is that it also took Chemists to come up with brominated vegetable oil sadly...
    - galangalalgol 3y ago
      Isn't it essentially a surfactant? Edible soap seems an odd thing to put in a beverage, but I do think mountain dew tasted better with it. The same argument regarding thyroid health can be made against flouridated water and toothpaste, but that concern already got shut down as a conspiracy theory.
      - isoprophlex 3y ago
        IIRC from a technological point of view these things are pretty clever, as they have a very high specific gravity (because bromine), you can use them to emulsify other oils that are less dense than water and end up with something that's at almost the same density as water.
      - Loic 3y ago
        From an historical point of view, food and soap industries were essentially one industry sharing the same raw materials.
- szundi 3y ago
  You are not pedantic but correct. This way we would die of hunger instantly, most (all?) of what we eat does not have a proof of safety cert. Also people are drinking these for decades and still with us, like eating eggs and bread.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > This way we would die of hunger instantly You're taking the proposal too literally. Obviously the people proposing this would support some kind of pragmatic middle ground. Oats and berries? Sold without any issue. Some untested exotic chemical that has been in the food supply for less than a year? Different story.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "Oats and berries? Sold without any issue. " Minus the issue of with what chemicals they were treated and grown.
    - boredumb 3y ago
      There are a lot of vested interest for a multitude of reasons in using those exotic chemicals. Chances are the middle ground solution is people have to register their oats and berries and the exotic chemicals will be deemed necessary to national food security and be given an exemption.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  We know what chemicals are safe in foods (assuming no excess) because we have eaten them through the entire human history: starches, fats, sugars, proteins and micronutrients. Any non-established chemical should have to be vetted before being added to food. There is no inherent right to poison people.
  - bdd8f1df777b 3y ago
    By your logic, we can't add any new substance to food anymore, because we haven't eaten them through the entire human history and there is no other way to prove their security.
    - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
      That's exactly what OP said, but without the catch that it can be added once it has been vetted for safety.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      We've already got enough substances for humans to survive and thrive. To add more to food should require crossing a high barrier, especially since almost all new substances are driven by profit motive rather than improvement of health and lives.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    To prove something is safe you'd have to make thousands of people eat it for decades. Short of that there is a selection bias on the test subjects, you also need to know how it goes for pregnant, elderly, children, tourists etc., put them in environments where you're absolutely sure they don't fall ill from other causes and do that until it's clear it's safe, so you need to at least see an infant build a family to know there's no reproductive impact. That would be the minimum level of certainty, and that's just not realistic.
  - mrob 3y ago
    Not all food toxicity risks are immediately obvious. E.g. hijiki seaweed is a traditional food in Japan, but it often contains dangerous quantities of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijiki
diob 3y ago
It's especially weird when these companies can comply with stricter regulations in foreign countries. Just make it without the weird shit everywhere!
refurb 3y ago
This isn't true. The FDA process is a chemical must be on the "GRAS" list (generally regarded as safe) to be used as a food additive. To get on that list, but must be the same level of data to support the conclusion it's safe, as a new additive that is reviewed by the FDA. There was a grandfathering in of additives used before 1958, but the FDA reviewed those products as well. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generall... General recognition of safety through scientific procedures is based upon the application of generally available and accepted scientific data, information, or methods, which ordinarily are published, as well as the application of scientific principles, and may be corroborated by the application of unpublished scientific data, information, or methods.
- markdown 3y ago
  FYI a corporation can just notify the FDA that they believe a new substance is GRAS. That’s all you need to do to use the new ingredient in food.
  - refurb 3y ago
    No, that’s not accurate. You could just the FDA regulations on the website and know that. Why reply with something that is clearly false?
    - markdown 3y ago
      It's not false. I have friends who've done this. You just need to file a GRAS Notice. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-170/subpart-E https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
AlecSchueler 3y ago
Banned in the EU since 2008.

by dzdt 3y ago

RajT88 3y ago

GRAS certification offers some clues on how this happened. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generall...

brutusborn 3y ago

Apologies for being pedantic, but you can’t prove safety in the same way that you can’t prove any hypothesis. I agree that new chemicals should undergo better safety screenings, but we must be honest with ourselves: a screening does not “prove” something is safe, it merely reduces the uncertainty that it is safe. As such, we must balance the costs and benefits of such testing regimes.

colordrops 3y ago
I'm reading the GP as not meaning "prove" as in a mathematical proof with absolute certainty, but rather that a rigorous process is followed to allow a new chemical in food, similar to vaccines and medicine.
- nickserv 3y ago
  Yes, but how rigorous? Some chemicals are only toxic when combined with others. Some may require years or even decades of exposure to show signs of toxicity. Some only affect a percentage of the population. Etc etc. The reality is that it's basically impossible to prove absolute safety. Perhaps it's better to assume there is always a risk, and to only a chemical if there is a really important reason for it, even if tested. So something like non-stick pans would be out.
  - oezi 3y ago
    They should use a similar process as with pharmaceuticals: Phase 1, 2 trials to show safety and then a rigorous post-market surveillance. If this means new chemicals cost 1bn USD to bring to market then yes, this is a reflection of the true cost of these products. We can't continue letting greedy corporations poison us just for the benefit of their shareholders.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    It may not need to be as rigorous as a vaccine or medicine, but that doesn't mean there should be no process. All that is needed for humans to survive and thrive robustly is already available. There is no excuse for new chemical to be introduced for the benefit of profit. It should be on the seller to prove the chemical is relatively safe rather than the public to prove it is not safe. It would be great if non-stick pans were never invented.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  Absolutely. Proof is based on a specific criteria. It doesn't mean that the thing you are proving is 100% guaranteed. Similar to Trump's warpspeed program. There was a specific criteria of a side effect profile that was acceptable. I don't know what that criteria was, but it was definitely there.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I know, but this usage lulls people into a false sense of security because it’s “proven” to be safe. I think it’s important to differentiate when discussing safety and risk. I can’t think of a better word, maybe safety “testing”, since this implies that the result hinges on the quality of the test and generally people are aware of the limitations of tests.
isoprophlex 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you but in this case it's adding the most unnatural weird ass shit to soda for no really good reasons. Any chemist looks at "brominated vegetable oil" and they'll tell you to chuck it into the waste container labeled "halogen rich organics" -- you know, the one waste container organic labs have to collect stuff thats Really Not Supposed to end up in living things. You don't really need a safety assessment to intuit that this is just a grossly weird thing to put in a drink.
- djtango 3y ago
  I was a Chemist and the only thing I can say sadly is that it also took Chemists to come up with brominated vegetable oil sadly...
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    Isn't it essentially a surfactant? Edible soap seems an odd thing to put in a beverage, but I do think mountain dew tasted better with it. The same argument regarding thyroid health can be made against flouridated water and toothpaste, but that concern already got shut down as a conspiracy theory.
    - isoprophlex 3y ago
      IIRC from a technological point of view these things are pretty clever, as they have a very high specific gravity (because bromine), you can use them to emulsify other oils that are less dense than water and end up with something that's at almost the same density as water.
    - Loic 3y ago
      From an historical point of view, food and soap industries were essentially one industry sharing the same raw materials.
szundi 3y ago
You are not pedantic but correct. This way we would die of hunger instantly, most (all?) of what we eat does not have a proof of safety cert. Also people are drinking these for decades and still with us, like eating eggs and bread.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > This way we would die of hunger instantly You're taking the proposal too literally. Obviously the people proposing this would support some kind of pragmatic middle ground. Oats and berries? Sold without any issue. Some untested exotic chemical that has been in the food supply for less than a year? Different story.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Oats and berries? Sold without any issue. " Minus the issue of with what chemicals they were treated and grown.
  - boredumb 3y ago
    There are a lot of vested interest for a multitude of reasons in using those exotic chemicals. Chances are the middle ground solution is people have to register their oats and berries and the exotic chemicals will be deemed necessary to national food security and be given an exemption.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
We know what chemicals are safe in foods (assuming no excess) because we have eaten them through the entire human history: starches, fats, sugars, proteins and micronutrients. Any non-established chemical should have to be vetted before being added to food. There is no inherent right to poison people.
- bdd8f1df777b 3y ago
  By your logic, we can't add any new substance to food anymore, because we haven't eaten them through the entire human history and there is no other way to prove their security.
  - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
    That's exactly what OP said, but without the catch that it can be added once it has been vetted for safety.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    We've already got enough substances for humans to survive and thrive. To add more to food should require crossing a high barrier, especially since almost all new substances are driven by profit motive rather than improvement of health and lives.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  To prove something is safe you'd have to make thousands of people eat it for decades. Short of that there is a selection bias on the test subjects, you also need to know how it goes for pregnant, elderly, children, tourists etc., put them in environments where you're absolutely sure they don't fall ill from other causes and do that until it's clear it's safe, so you need to at least see an infant build a family to know there's no reproductive impact. That would be the minimum level of certainty, and that's just not realistic.
- mrob 3y ago
  Not all food toxicity risks are immediately obvious. E.g. hijiki seaweed is a traditional food in Japan, but it often contains dangerous quantities of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijiki

diob 3y ago

It's especially weird when these companies can comply with stricter regulations in foreign countries. Just make it without the weird shit everywhere!

refurb 3y ago

This isn't true. The FDA process is a chemical must be on the "GRAS" list (generally regarded as safe) to be used as a food additive. To get on that list, but must be the same level of data to support the conclusion it's safe, as a new additive that is reviewed by the FDA. There was a grandfathering in of additives used before 1958, but the FDA reviewed those products as well. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generall... General recognition of safety through scientific procedures is based upon the application of generally available and accepted scientific data, information, or methods, which ordinarily are published, as well as the application of scientific principles, and may be corroborated by the application of unpublished scientific data, information, or methods.

markdown 3y ago
FYI a corporation can just notify the FDA that they believe a new substance is GRAS. That’s all you need to do to use the new ingredient in food.
- refurb 3y ago
  No, that’s not accurate. You could just the FDA regulations on the website and know that. Why reply with something that is clearly false?
  - markdown 3y ago
    It's not false. I have friends who've done this. You just need to file a GRAS Notice. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-170/subpart-E https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...

AlecSchueler 3y ago

Banned in the EU since 2008.