3 ms·
Just a lot of anecdotal stories that people suffering from various forms of food intolerance (gluten intolerance in particular seems to be strongly correlated w
by TimTheTinker 2y ago
Just a lot of anecdotal stories that people suffering from various forms of food intolerance (gluten intolerance in particular seems to be strongly correlated with GMO grains) can't eat most GMO/non-organic American food, but can eat food from Europe, where GMO foods are banned and regulatory bodies do not allow new things until clinically proven to not be harmful.
More generally, I'm a proponent of the philosophical view that the FDA and EPA should allowlist things, not denylist. A pesticide, GMO technique, additive, dye, preservative, etc. should be proven via clinical trials before being allowed, not allowed by default until proven harmful.
As it is, this allow-by-default makes the US population the test case for everything at once, making causes of harm difficult to trace (as certain vendors are financially incentivized to want them to be). Furthermore, regulators can be bought via lobbyists, preventing things from being banned until long after their harmfulness is well-known.
Wanting to do things better is nice, but it's no excuse for failing to sufficiently test new things in isolation.
- consumer451 2y ago> More generally, I'm a proponent of the philosophical view that the FDA and EPA should allowlist things, not denylist. A pesticide, GMO technique, additive, dye, preservative, etc. should be proven via clinical trials before being allowed, not allowed by default until proven harmful. I agree with this 100%. I believe that it used to be that way in the USA until the burden of proof was shifted by the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, although I am not entirely clear on this.