[mensetmanusman]

Those tests exist already, but no ethical tests can determine the full truth.

Also, tests where minute traces of anything, like coffee, are purified to extreme amounts and injected into animals to cause cancer only add confusion, especially when California considers adding cancer warnings to coffee.

[zug_zug]

> Those tests exist already

Do you actually know which tests the EPA runs and if so could you cite your source?

> no ethical tests can determine the full truth.

That's an all-or-nothing fallacy.

Also you didn't respond to the core of my remark, which is about increasing the financial incentives by an order of magnitude. Lastly I take your complaint about coffee as support my argument that the current testing mechanisms are likely too simple.

[robocat]

> fallacy

No. Ethical tests cannot determine the full truth - that is just a simple fact.

How can anything be tested on on enough humans ethically? We can use animal models to detect some negatives. But if animal tests show a substance is "safe", doubt would still remain until tested on humans. It is normal that humanity creates new technology without knowing the future impact. Some people think that we shouldn't introduce new technology since we can't afford the risks. But technology has ethically positive outcomes - not only negative risk. Doing nothing has risks too.

[autoexec]

I guess that it's a fallacy because we don't need to determine the "full truth", just as much of it as we can if doing so would prevent mass poisonings.