The point of the natural food movement -- as is patently obvious -- is suspicion about the health effects of many chemicals put into foods; suspicion of the hea

The point of the natural food movement -- as is patently obvious -- is suspicion about the health effects of many chemicals put into foods; suspicion of the health effects of the way food animals are drugged, raised, and treated; and suspicion of regulatory capture of the FDA. We should treat, in the absence of safety studies, artificial ingredients as dangerous and prefer not to use them. Just for example, people don't want bpa or similar substitutes in their food. And while it appears that bpa may be safe-ish [2], we got around to checking that well after manufacturers put it in all of us. The CDC had found bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 1988–1994 and in 93% of children and adults tested in 2003–04. While the EPA considers exposures up to 50 µg/kg/day to be safe, the most sensitive animal studies show effects at much lower doses, and several studies of children, who tend to have the highest levels, have found levels over the EPA's suggested safe limit figure. [2] [1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A