4 ms·

> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Because we're talking a

> The correct (and scientifically valid) thing to do is to only take action when there is actual evidence and proof of harm being done. Because we're talking about food I would actually like to see the opposite. Provide peer reviewed, gold standard studies showing that what you want to put in food is in fact safe.

timr 2y ago
There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Proving something safe is logically equivalent to proving that it is not unsafe, which is the same thing as proving a negative, which cannot be done. I cannot prove there is not a teapot circling Mars, and I cannot prove that even the most inert ingredient, at some dose, will not harm you. Anyone who has lived in California knows this absurdity more intuitively than most people, because California's stupid laws adopt the logic you are proposing, and basically everything in daily life is labeled as cancer-causing.
- tw04 2y ago
  >There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Really? You have some studies linking wheat and whole grains to cancer? And I don't mean wheat crops sprayed with glyphosate, just straight up wheat? Raspberries? Strawberries? The reality is, very little of the actual natural food in our food chain is directly linked to cancer. All the additives we pile on top, on the other hand, are. I would argue if we can't show a direct benefit to the consumer, it shouldn't be in the food chain. So, what is the direct benefit to a human consuming red-5? "It looks better on store shelves" isn't a direct benefit. A shelf stabilizer? Sure, plenty of instances that makes a lot of sense. Food coloring that happens to be cheaper than natural alternatives? Just... no.
  - whodev 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
  - rimunroe 2y ago
    > The reality is, very little of the actual natural food in our food chain is directly linked to cancer. Natural things aren't inherently safer. Are alcohol and red meat both considered natural? Alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen (same as tobacco and asbestos) and red meat is group 2A (probably linked to cancer). A cursory search shows some studies linking fish consumption to cancer, though I have no idea how accurate those studies are.
    - tw04 2y ago
      I’ll ignore for a second you completely avoided the point to move the goal posts. Alcohol isn’t a natural food, it’s a result of food rotting. Much like rotten meat, you can naturally assume negative side effects Red meat has positive benefits from its consumption, as does fish. What is the benefit of red5? If aren’t going to address that, I’ll assume you aren’t interested in anything but whataboutism and aren’t actually engaging in a good faith discussion.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - rimunroe 2y ago
        > I’ll ignore for a second you completely avoided the point to move the goal posts. Which goal posts did I move? Directly addressing a foundational claim isn't moving goal posts. You said that very few natural foods are directly linked to cancer. That's demonstrably false, as red meat almost certainly is. To your next point: > Alcohol isn’t a natural food, it’s a result of food rotting. I genuinely have no idea what you mean by natural then. At what point does something become unnatural? Alcohol certainly occurs in nature quite a bit, and I don't know that I'd call all the instances "rotting". Leavening bread with yeast produces noticeable amounts of alcohol. Orange juice famously contains a surprisingly high level of alcohol. > Red meat has positive benefits from its consumption, as does fish. Of course they do and that's why I never claimed they didn't. I would assume all foods have health benefits (beyond the obvious one of course). However, you claimed that most natural foods don't have links to cancer in particular. > What is the benefit of red5? I only just realized you said "red 5" earlier. I assume you're referring to red 3 (erythrosine), though I don't think the specific dye matters here. > If aren’t going to address that, I’ll assume you aren’t interested in anything but whataboutism and aren’t actually engaging in a good faith discussion. I'm not an expert on the dye in question and know little about it so I purposely didn't comment on it. I don't think I need to do so in order to address your central claim, which seems to be--and correct me if I'm wrong--that to lower our cancer risk we shouldn't add things to our food chain which aren't naturally in our food chain. That claim relies on 1) being able to distinguish what is natural to our food chain, and 2) for natural things being less likely to cause cancer than unnatural things. I believe 2 is flawed for the reasons I already gave. 1 is a famously thorny subject. Even pre-history human diets were varied enough for adaptations for different regions to evolve. Anyway, I'm an idiot on the subject of dyes but if you want my argument: adding regulations isn't a zero-cost thing. We shouldn't add them without solid justification. I don't have enough knowledge about this subject to know whether or not such justification exists for the red dye in question here. However, your proposed alternative doesn't sound well-defined enough to be argued without you being clearer about what you mean.
- lumb63 2y ago
  A lot of folks in child comments are echoing your sentiment that something “cannot be proved safe”. Your argument that proving something is “not unsafe” is proving a negative is fallacious; the same can literally be said about anything (proving something is X is the same as proving it is not not-X). Proving drugs are safe and effective is literally one of the jobs of the FDA. If you do not believe that is possible, then we may as well tear down the entire drug regulatory apparatus. I imagine you and many other commenters will sing a different tune when posed with that suggestion. So, let’s stop pretending it’s not possible. We require drug companies show their products are safe and efficacious, and there is both a scientific and a legal framework by which we do this. Let’s debate whether or not the same framework should be applied to food additives (I would argue it should) rather than claim it is not possible.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    "Safe" for the FDA means the benefits outweigh the potential risks, not safe in absolute terms. If the FDA actually required every drug to be proven safe at any dose for everyone, we'd have no modern drugs.
  - refurb 2y ago
    We require drug companies show their products are safe and efficacious, and there is both a scientific and a legal framework by which we do this. We don’t do this. What the FDA requires is acceptable safety in light of the benefit provided. The FDA approves highly toxic drugs all the time. Including ones with the risk of death. I don’t think anyone would call chemotherapy “safe”.
- f1shy 2y ago
  > There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Is that not what NCAP does? Or what NTSB and FAA do with aviation? You can prove that some things are safe. Does not mean infallible, means safe.
sneak 2y ago
It’s impossible to prove a negative.
- HWR_14 2y ago
  Why wouldn't you be able to prove a negative link?
  - sneak 2y ago
    It is logically and practically impossible to prove things to be untrue. We can only prove things that are true. The thing we could prove is “no detectable increase versus control, in our test data”. There is no way to prove “x does not cause cancer” any more than there is a way to prove “x does not cause meteors” or “x does not cause spontaneous human resurrections” or “x does not cause humans to turn into unicorns”.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - HWR_14 2y ago
      How does “no detectable increase versus control, in our test data” not prove there is no connection (errors in the study aside). And why does that not prove anything, but "yes detectable increase versus control, in our test data” does? Because, sure there can be errors either way. But a study produces new knowledge, not just knowledge or "just as much a mystery"
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      Practically impossible, not logically impossible. "For all" proofs do exist in mathematics, but obviously it's very unlikely that you could do such a proof for physical reality.
    - BlackFly 2y ago
      There is no distinction in logic between a positive statement and a negative statement. Every proof of a proposition P is also a proof of !Q where Q = !P. Proof by contradiction is just that, assume P -> get contradiction, therefore proof that !P. People really need to retire this canard.
constantcrying 2y ago
There is no way to establish a food as "safe". Health outcomes are noisy, especially if taken over a long time. Peer reviewed studies are often flawed in various ways and most scientific studies lack the statistical power to be inconclusive. The fear based approach to human diets can not work. We have to accept risks in our lives if we want to eat at all.
- kupopuffs 2y ago
  "lack the statistical power to be inconclusive" is that right?
hilux 2y ago
I don't know about "peer-reviewed gold-standard studies," but what you've described is basically how the EU does it – what goes in food must be proven safe. It's the opposite of the US approach, which is to ban (only) proven-harmful ingredients. I don't expect US food-safety laws to become more strict in the next four years, but who knows, maybe the dead-worm guy will surprise us.
throw10920 2y ago
Natural food is not safe. Many natural foods that people eat, specifically plants, contain natural toxins and carcinogens that would probably not pass your threshold for "safe".[1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/

timr 2y ago

There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Proving something safe is logically equivalent to proving that it is not unsafe, which is the same thing as proving a negative, which cannot be done. I cannot prove there is not a teapot circling Mars, and I cannot prove that even the most inert ingredient, at some dose, will not harm you. Anyone who has lived in California knows this absurdity more intuitively than most people, because California's stupid laws adopt the logic you are proposing, and basically everything in daily life is labeled as cancer-causing.

tw04 2y ago
>There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Go back and re-read the parent comment. The important point you are missing is that basically anything can be "linked" to cancer, and if you adopt the argument you are making, there would be nothing left. Really? You have some studies linking wheat and whole grains to cancer? And I don't mean wheat crops sprayed with glyphosate, just straight up wheat? Raspberries? Strawberries? The reality is, very little of the actual natural food in our food chain is directly linked to cancer. All the additives we pile on top, on the other hand, are. I would argue if we can't show a direct benefit to the consumer, it shouldn't be in the food chain. So, what is the direct benefit to a human consuming red-5? "It looks better on store shelves" isn't a direct benefit. A shelf stabilizer? Sure, plenty of instances that makes a lot of sense. Food coloring that happens to be cheaper than natural alternatives? Just... no.
- whodev 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- rimunroe 2y ago
  > The reality is, very little of the actual natural food in our food chain is directly linked to cancer. Natural things aren't inherently safer. Are alcohol and red meat both considered natural? Alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen (same as tobacco and asbestos) and red meat is group 2A (probably linked to cancer). A cursory search shows some studies linking fish consumption to cancer, though I have no idea how accurate those studies are.
  - tw04 2y ago
    I’ll ignore for a second you completely avoided the point to move the goal posts. Alcohol isn’t a natural food, it’s a result of food rotting. Much like rotten meat, you can naturally assume negative side effects Red meat has positive benefits from its consumption, as does fish. What is the benefit of red5? If aren’t going to address that, I’ll assume you aren’t interested in anything but whataboutism and aren’t actually engaging in a good faith discussion.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - rimunroe 2y ago
      > I’ll ignore for a second you completely avoided the point to move the goal posts. Which goal posts did I move? Directly addressing a foundational claim isn't moving goal posts. You said that very few natural foods are directly linked to cancer. That's demonstrably false, as red meat almost certainly is. To your next point: > Alcohol isn’t a natural food, it’s a result of food rotting. I genuinely have no idea what you mean by natural then. At what point does something become unnatural? Alcohol certainly occurs in nature quite a bit, and I don't know that I'd call all the instances "rotting". Leavening bread with yeast produces noticeable amounts of alcohol. Orange juice famously contains a surprisingly high level of alcohol. > Red meat has positive benefits from its consumption, as does fish. Of course they do and that's why I never claimed they didn't. I would assume all foods have health benefits (beyond the obvious one of course). However, you claimed that most natural foods don't have links to cancer in particular. > What is the benefit of red5? I only just realized you said "red 5" earlier. I assume you're referring to red 3 (erythrosine), though I don't think the specific dye matters here. > If aren’t going to address that, I’ll assume you aren’t interested in anything but whataboutism and aren’t actually engaging in a good faith discussion. I'm not an expert on the dye in question and know little about it so I purposely didn't comment on it. I don't think I need to do so in order to address your central claim, which seems to be--and correct me if I'm wrong--that to lower our cancer risk we shouldn't add things to our food chain which aren't naturally in our food chain. That claim relies on 1) being able to distinguish what is natural to our food chain, and 2) for natural things being less likely to cause cancer than unnatural things. I believe 2 is flawed for the reasons I already gave. 1 is a famously thorny subject. Even pre-history human diets were varied enough for adaptations for different regions to evolve. Anyway, I'm an idiot on the subject of dyes but if you want my argument: adding regulations isn't a zero-cost thing. We shouldn't add them without solid justification. I don't have enough knowledge about this subject to know whether or not such justification exists for the red dye in question here. However, your proposed alternative doesn't sound well-defined enough to be argued without you being clearer about what you mean.
lumb63 2y ago
A lot of folks in child comments are echoing your sentiment that something “cannot be proved safe”. Your argument that proving something is “not unsafe” is proving a negative is fallacious; the same can literally be said about anything (proving something is X is the same as proving it is not not-X). Proving drugs are safe and effective is literally one of the jobs of the FDA. If you do not believe that is possible, then we may as well tear down the entire drug regulatory apparatus. I imagine you and many other commenters will sing a different tune when posed with that suggestion. So, let’s stop pretending it’s not possible. We require drug companies show their products are safe and efficacious, and there is both a scientific and a legal framework by which we do this. Let’s debate whether or not the same framework should be applied to food additives (I would argue it should) rather than claim it is not possible.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  "Safe" for the FDA means the benefits outweigh the potential risks, not safe in absolute terms. If the FDA actually required every drug to be proven safe at any dose for everyone, we'd have no modern drugs.
- refurb 2y ago
  We require drug companies show their products are safe and efficacious, and there is both a scientific and a legal framework by which we do this. We don’t do this. What the FDA requires is acceptable safety in light of the benefit provided. The FDA approves highly toxic drugs all the time. Including ones with the risk of death. I don’t think anyone would call chemotherapy “safe”.
f1shy 2y ago
> There is no such thing as proving something "safe". Is that not what NCAP does? Or what NTSB and FAA do with aviation? You can prove that some things are safe. Does not mean infallible, means safe.

sneak 2y ago

It’s impossible to prove a negative.

HWR_14 2y ago
Why wouldn't you be able to prove a negative link?
- sneak 2y ago
  It is logically and practically impossible to prove things to be untrue. We can only prove things that are true. The thing we could prove is “no detectable increase versus control, in our test data”. There is no way to prove “x does not cause cancer” any more than there is a way to prove “x does not cause meteors” or “x does not cause spontaneous human resurrections” or “x does not cause humans to turn into unicorns”.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - HWR_14 2y ago
    How does “no detectable increase versus control, in our test data” not prove there is no connection (errors in the study aside). And why does that not prove anything, but "yes detectable increase versus control, in our test data” does? Because, sure there can be errors either way. But a study produces new knowledge, not just knowledge or "just as much a mystery"
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Practically impossible, not logically impossible. "For all" proofs do exist in mathematics, but obviously it's very unlikely that you could do such a proof for physical reality.
  - BlackFly 2y ago
    There is no distinction in logic between a positive statement and a negative statement. Every proof of a proposition P is also a proof of !Q where Q = !P. Proof by contradiction is just that, assume P -> get contradiction, therefore proof that !P. People really need to retire this canard.

constantcrying 2y ago

There is no way to establish a food as "safe". Health outcomes are noisy, especially if taken over a long time. Peer reviewed studies are often flawed in various ways and most scientific studies lack the statistical power to be inconclusive. The fear based approach to human diets can not work. We have to accept risks in our lives if we want to eat at all.

kupopuffs 2y ago
"lack the statistical power to be inconclusive" is that right?

hilux 2y ago

I don't know about "peer-reviewed gold-standard studies," but what you've described is basically how the EU does it – what goes in food must be proven safe. It's the opposite of the US approach, which is to ban (only) proven-harmful ingredients. I don't expect US food-safety laws to become more strict in the next four years, but who knows, maybe the dead-worm guy will surprise us.

throw10920 2y ago

Natural food is not safe. Many natural foods that people eat, specifically plants, contain natural toxins and carcinogens that would probably not pass your threshold for "safe".[1] [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2217210/