ethan801

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ethan801 2y ago

   >If I wasn't generally opposed to an ever-growing scope of federal powers, I'd probably support an effective ban or extremely high bar on new additives. If food companies aren't willing to test it they shouldn't bothe
2. 2.▲
   by ethan801 2y ago

   Well two of the major reasons for the original act were because of highly unsanitary conditions at slaughter houses (Upton Sinclair's The Jungle) and the use of known unsafe preservatives (e.g formaldehyde, spurred on heavily by Harvey
3. 3.▲
   by ethan801 2y ago

   I mean it appears the explicit answer is due to the 1938 FDC act. Whereby congress explicitly empowered the FDA to enforce the fact that new drugs must be shown safe before selling and advertising can begin. However no such rule was passed
4. 4.▲
   by ethan801 2y ago

   My assumption is that when the FDA was created there were already a large number of foods and food additives and testing all of those would have been impossible (and would have struck the public as absurd). You also have to deal with the fa
5. 5.▲
   by ethan801 2y ago

   I also often find myself reading the acknowledgments whenever I read a thesis (though I try to save it for the end as a reward for myself). If anyone is interested. At Harvard, most Ph.D programs submit to DASH, meaning that you should be