Hacker News Reader

Comment by thatjoeoverthr | Hacker News Reader

In context, entirely logical!

We have extremely pervasive health problems across the west, and many theories (you can surely think of 20), but all of them are weak under scrutiny, specifically because the phenomena are effectively impossible to isolate and pin down. You can't actually achieve a strong signal.

So if multiple studies link a low-value and/or easily replaceable additive to problems, we can remove it as a precaution.

Food colorants in particular serve _primarily_ an advertising role. In general, advertising junk food to children is often restricted and highly contested. The difference here is the child is expected to physically consume the artefact.

We should adopt a "default deny" stance and contested ingredients at least should show some kind of value. You can make a case for many preservatives. Paint is not like that.

View on HN

That fails the scientific method in several places.

Science doesn’t ban things with questionable data from poorly designed studies when other studies say the opposite.

Science doesn’t ban things because of some other problem where a causal link hasn’t been proven.

We already have a “default deny” system in place. Unless you have data saying it’s safe (according to regulations), a chemical can’t be used as a food additive.

Edited to add:

GRAS definition....."the use of a food substance may be GRAS either through scientific procedures or, for a substance used in food before 1958, through experience based on common use in food Under 21 CFR 170.30(b), general recognition of safety through scientific procedures requires the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive."

> We already have a “default deny” system in place.

GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) defies this reasonable expectation.

https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generall...

GRAS approvals include some rather novel food additives. Here is a list of recent notifications.

https://www.fda.gov/food/gras-notice-inventory/recently-publ...

It helps when you read your sources.

It literally says “GRAS must meet the same standards as new additives”.

The only reason GRAS exists is that FDA regulations have changed over time.

Unless you wanted all food additives immediately banned until years of tests could be conducted, the FDA created GRAS based on the evidence at the time but also required additional studies to bring existing additives up to the same safety standards as new additives.

Feel free to click on any of the GRAS decisions to read all about the studies done.

> Science doesn’t ban things with questionable data from poorly designed studies when other studies say the opposite.

Science doesn’t ban anything. That is simply put not the role of science.

Science can inform decision making, but it is not the only valid way to make decisions.

Science is a tool for finding truth, or at least weighing evidence. It isn’t policy and doesn’t have anything to say about policy.

You can have a policy of waiting for overwhelming proof of harm before banning anything. But there are an awful lot of chemicals added to our food and environment, with precious few studies competently and honestly tracking their effects. I want a much more careful policy - don’t put unknown chemicals in my body without convincing me the benefit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com