[jaggederest]

There are plenty of "natural" carcinogens. Tobacco, for example, is perhaps the largest single cause of cancer in human history.

[zug_zug]

I don't know if this addresses the root of the question though, which is - of things occurring naturally vs those man-made, is there a statistically significant difference in safety of ingesting those found in nature.

I'd imagine there is, or at the very least we'd have millions of years worth of evolution to learn to dislike the taste of naturally occurring things that are bad for us in the vast majority of cases.

[twerkmonsta]

I know there are natural carcinogens. That wasn’t my question.

Tobacco is a plant. Cigarettes are a product made from tobacco with many “artificial” chemicals added. Cigarettes are the cause.

[jaggederest]

Tobacco is the cause. Raw tobacco usage straight off the plant is cancer-causing, there's no manipulation needed.

[SapporoChris]

I will not disagree completely. But I will point out that nicotine by itself can actually have benefits that outweight the risks.

Search "benefits of nicotine", yields a wealth of articles supporting this such as: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1859921/

[jaggederest]

Absolutely, there are few weight loss / irritable bowel syndrome drugs more effective, though it is of course horribly addictive. But tobacco is a lot more than just pure nicotine, and that's where the problems come in.

[dragonwriter]

> Tobacco is a plant.

That is full of carcinogens. And nicotine, which IIRC isn't a carcinogen itself but instead promotes tumor growth once they form.

> Cigarettes are the cause.

Chewing tobacco is a great way to get (a different set of kinds of) cancer, too.