Your reasoning seems quite confused, and you do not present any support whatsoever for the accusation that my claim is incoherent. You seem to be arguing agains

Your reasoning seems quite confused, and you do not present any support whatsoever for the accusation that my claim is incoherent. You seem to be arguing against they very idea of reductionism, that we cannot isolate compounds that are harmful from what they are part of ("foods" in your example). There are countless cases where we have done this; quicksilver, lead, and other heavy metals come to mind, lots of carcinogenic substances &c. &c. > Or rather: it makes no sense to be concerned that a steak will be deadly because it contains a constituent (cow) that is deadly. It makes a lot of sense. If a cow has been fed with food that was contaminated with a carcinogenic substance, the resulting beef will be unsafe. Your comment focuses on food safety, but my main point was to stress that food safety is already regulated thoroughly, while the use of chemicals such as discussed in the article is not regulated at all.