[hgomersall]

What level of evidence is acceptable before stopping things entering our food chain? Is it anything that doesn't have positive evidence of harm ok? Presumably a little bit of study is required... So how much? How many interactions should be studied? Is there a benefit trade off (I'm actually struggling here, so if you think so, perhaps you can clarify what benefits would lead to a a higher risk of harm)?

[gruez]

>What level of evidence is acceptable before stopping things entering our food chain? Is it anything that doesn't have positive evidence of harm ok?

Peanuts have very clear evidence of harm (at least to those who are allergic), and it's unclear what "benefits" it has besides "it tastes good". Why allow it?