D
dalai lamah
Un bel giorno Martin Brown digitò:
Even if chemical A and chemical B are harmless if taken alone, this doesn't
prove that chemical A+B will be harmless.
Food additives tests are done just like drug tests: by giving to animals or
persons (depending on the trial stage) extreme dosages of a single
chemical, and studying the effects. As far as I know, there isn't any real
effort in finding possible new interactions with others chemicals (apart
those already known in literature).
I mean the chemicals that you artificially put into food, from the field to
the factory. Actually the wine is a very good example of this; grapes are
one of the cultures most abused with pesticides, and several of them are
already classified as mutagenic or toxic. Even if we take the leap of faith
to believe that a carcinogenic chemical is almost harmless at a
concentration lower than X (...), the problem of interactions between
chemicals still stands, even at very small amounts.
This is a biased source, but it contains several interesting informations
(all the site does, actually):
http://www.pan-europe.info/Resources/Briefings/Message_in_a_Bottle.pdf
If wines were subjected to the same limitations used for water, they would
be all rejected. I don't know if laugh or stop drinking wine.
Of course not. Who have you taken me for, some kind of hippie?
I'm not one of those nutjobs/luddites/whatever that blame the tecnology for
each one of their miseries, "chemicals are bad, let's ban them all and go
live on trees!". IMHO chemical industry is the second great technological
advance of our era, right after microelectronics. But just like we can't be
scared of each technological improvement, we can't embrace it blindfolded
either.
Fortunately most of them do not have any significant harmful effects.
Even if chemical A and chemical B are harmless if taken alone, this doesn't
prove that chemical A+B will be harmless.
And new chemicals are screened extensively before they are allowed out
of the lab. Sometimes they miss dangerous side effects like with
Thalidomide, and I have my suspicions about some artificial sweeteners
like cyclamates and most recently sucralose. But tests suggest that
they are OK in moderation
Food additives tests are done just like drug tests: by giving to animals or
persons (depending on the trial stage) extreme dosages of a single
chemical, and studying the effects. As far as I know, there isn't any real
effort in finding possible new interactions with others chemicals (apart
those already known in literature).
Do you have any idea about the number of distinct chemicals in a
decent bottle of wine?
I mean the chemicals that you artificially put into food, from the field to
the factory. Actually the wine is a very good example of this; grapes are
one of the cultures most abused with pesticides, and several of them are
already classified as mutagenic or toxic. Even if we take the leap of faith
to believe that a carcinogenic chemical is almost harmless at a
concentration lower than X (...), the problem of interactions between
chemicals still stands, even at very small amounts.
This is a biased source, but it contains several interesting informations
(all the site does, actually):
http://www.pan-europe.info/Resources/Briefings/Message_in_a_Bottle.pdf
If wines were subjected to the same limitations used for water, they would
be all rejected. I don't know if laugh or stop drinking wine.
Natural does not equal safe.
Of course not. Who have you taken me for, some kind of hippie?
I'm not one of those nutjobs/luddites/whatever that blame the tecnology for
each one of their miseries, "chemicals are bad, let's ban them all and go
live on trees!". IMHO chemical industry is the second great technological
advance of our era, right after microelectronics. But just like we can't be
scared of each technological improvement, we can't embrace it blindfolded
either.