[briandear]

If the bans are supported by reproducible, peer-reviewed science, then I obviously support them. But if the ban is a result of “possibility” as opposed to “proven,” then I feel that food bans have a way of becoming less about public health and more about politics. Grilled meat has carcinogens, but to actually get cancer from grilled meat, one would have to eat a hundred pounds a day (or some absurd equivalent.) I realize that grilled meat isn’t banned, but my point is, any substance can be harmful in large enough quantities and concentrations, but Europe bans some things that would have to be consumed in unlikely quantities before they’d be “harmful.”

There is a lot of “people have more allergies/obsessing/whatever than the old days,” and the assumption is that it’s because of the food, without actual science proving that’s the case; it’s just a hypothesis that doesn’t necessarily account for thousands of other variables.

People have more allergies now than they used to. Could that not be caused by more electromagnetic radiation? More TV watching? Typing more?