Unrelated to the issue of trying to prove a negative - can you demonstrate where the US Constitution allows the Federal Government to set up the FDA in the first place?
Some of what the FDA does is good and proper. But it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do it.
It's no different than categorically stating that something is safe, simply because evidence of harm is yet to be found. See thalidomide, tobacco, DDT, and a host of others.
So, to the extent that both sides are being "unreasonable" in demanding proof, the difference is that we are moving forward with one side's thesis. In doing so, we are exposing people en masse to the risk of their being wrong.
Yes - both those positions are flawed. One leads to human progress, though, and the other to stagnation. I know which I'd choose.
It's also worth considering that people clamoring for "proof of safety" are usually the first to complain when you ask them for evidence to back up their pet projects (for example minimum wage laws). It's not even like they're being consistent about it.
>both those positions are flawed. One leads to human progress, though, and the other to stagnation
Of course the other side would say that this hoped for "human progress" can, and many times, has instead been human suffering.
But, it's a false choice you're offering which says that these two extremes are our only options. No one is arguing against "progress". The problem is our haste to declare something safe due to absence of proof, then subject people to it on a mass scale. We literally experiment on the general population.
And, how many times must we learn this lesson? The hubris on display here [1] reminds me of those who today trumpet the safety of, say, GMOs; dumping different pesticides on entire populations (still today), etc.
In hindsight, the scale of hubris on display in [1] is completely asinine. But, the "absence of proof" mindset that led to this folly is alive and well today.