2 ms·

The problem here is you are asking for the impossible: strong evidence that novel chemicals are safe. How could you ever get that? It's impossible to prove a

The problem here is you are asking for the impossible: strong evidence that novel chemicals are safe. How could you ever get that? It's impossible to prove a negative. And doesn't this just privilege tradition? Chemicals will be grandfathered in for spurious reasons, not because they are actually any safer. Famously, chemicals in plants very often light up the Ames test for carcinogenicity and would be ruled out by your argument if they weren't "natural".

VoodooJuJu 2y ago
We have plenty of strong evidence for the safety of tons of things. My ancestors have been consuming cow's milk, mache, and wine for thousands of years. If these things were not safe for consumption, we wouldn't be consuming them to this day. My bloodline wouldn't have made it this far. We don't add poison hemlock to our mache salads because thousands of years ago, some poor souls gave us strong evidence that it's not something you should eat, and that knowledge was passed down to us.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > wine Thank you for a most excellent example illustrating my point and demolishing yours. Alcohol is estimated to cause 4.5% of all cancers in Europe. It's a Group 1 carcinogen, yet it is privileged because of tradition. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/6/1128/7295464 https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/6/1128/7295464
- quesera 2y ago
  This logic is not formally valid. It's a reasonable basis of belief for a pre-science culture, though. Also, FWIW, cow's milk has objectively changed in the last few decades.
sir0010010 2y ago
We have to compare potential downsides though, we have two choices, we can: * not ingest novel chemicals or * ingest novel chemicals that may be carcinogenic, but scientific research will not be able to prove anything either way Do you not think that it is rational to choose option 1, given our understanding of the Lindy effect?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  It depends on the benefit of the chemical vs. the risk. One-sided assessment isn't wise.

VoodooJuJu 2y ago

We have plenty of strong evidence for the safety of tons of things. My ancestors have been consuming cow's milk, mache, and wine for thousands of years. If these things were not safe for consumption, we wouldn't be consuming them to this day. My bloodline wouldn't have made it this far. We don't add poison hemlock to our mache salads because thousands of years ago, some poor souls gave us strong evidence that it's not something you should eat, and that knowledge was passed down to us.

pfdietz 2y ago
> wine Thank you for a most excellent example illustrating my point and demolishing yours. Alcohol is estimated to cause 4.5% of all cancers in Europe. It's a Group 1 carcinogen, yet it is privileged because of tradition. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/6/1128/7295464 https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/6/1128/7295464
quesera 2y ago
This logic is not formally valid. It's a reasonable basis of belief for a pre-science culture, though. Also, FWIW, cow's milk has objectively changed in the last few decades.

sir0010010 2y ago

We have to compare potential downsides though, we have two choices, we can: * not ingest novel chemicals or * ingest novel chemicals that may be carcinogenic, but scientific research will not be able to prove anything either way Do you not think that it is rational to choose option 1, given our understanding of the Lindy effect?

pfdietz 2y ago
It depends on the benefit of the chemical vs. the risk. One-sided assessment isn't wise.