4 ms·

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

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
- colordrops 3y ago
  Just because some foods slip through doesn't mean there shouldn't be a process. Also hijiki isn't a new chemical but a food that has been eaten for thousands of years, so not really comparable.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
And that vetting should include simulated "in the wild" testing. Isolating a chemical and testing it's safety ignores the fact that in the wild there are other chemicals. That is, A is safe. B is safe. But when exposed to A + B your gut's microbes go bonkers. I get it. That's a high bar. So be it.

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

colordrops 3y ago
Just because some foods slip through doesn't mean there shouldn't be a process. Also hijiki isn't a new chemical but a food that has been eaten for thousands of years, so not really comparable.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

And that vetting should include simulated "in the wild" testing. Isolating a chemical and testing it's safety ignores the fact that in the wild there are other chemicals. That is, A is safe. B is safe. But when exposed to A + B your gut's microbes go bonkers. I get it. That's a high bar. So be it.