[bilsbie]

I agree but I think both approaches are needed.

If this device simply found most bad stuff (when above safe limits) we’d be in a way better position. Eg. Arsenic, lead, pesticides, etc.

* edited to add “above safe limits” since folks seem to be strawmanning my point. In case it really wasn’t clear.

[KempyKolibri]

This is what regulation already does (quite effectively too, at least over here in the UK). We already know that harmful substances aren’t likely to be present in our foods thanks to regulatory checks.

Then we’d be left with checks for substances at levels lower than regulations are concerned with, but I’m not sure why we’d care about that.

Fish has mercury present in it, but increased consumption seems to be associated with positive health outcomes. If the device said “danger, mercury”, what are we replacing it with? Red meat? Sausage? The current evidence would suggest that would be a retrograde step.

[bilsbie]

The whole point of this thread and the past 30 years at least in the US is that those regulations aren’t working.

[KempyKolibri]

Well that would depend on what you mean by “not working”. It seems like the US regulations are generally doing a good job of keeping toxic products out of the food supply.

I’m not sure if your claim is specifically around food colouring. If it is, I’ve not seen any compelling evidence that the food colouring allowed under US regulation is actually problematic for health.

[mrguyorama]

So you never eat rice or apples right?

They always contain arsenic. They always have