Using SSRIs to make grapefruit sound dangerous?
Using cow shit to make spinach sound dangerous?
Using canning to make vegetables sound dangerous?
Using oral s— okay, I’ll grant you that last one.
1 Like
she said.
I get awards for my academic papers one page a time, like everybody else.
she said winningly.
6 Likes
Thanks, Mindysan33! I was going to respond, but you beat me to it. I hate personal attacks that make me feel sorry for someone with whom I disagree–in this case, “FoodBabe.”
1 Like
There are studies showing that intake level X is safe and others showing the same level X is dangerous. It’s so very difficult to quantify the effect of anything even salt. My point is that the FDA saying something is safe is in no way to be considered definitive.
I have no problem with eating things used in industrial applications. Water is great. I love it. It’s used to make all sorts of evil things. Take your hypothetical game and play with someone else.
2 Likes
Yes, and I have references for all of them. I am seriously not pulling this out of my keister 
And my point (and the only reason I used that hypothetical) is that just because scientists aren’t able to definitively say something is safe in all ways/conditions/doses doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be taking someone to task for using scare tactics to claim a safety risk that isn’t based on any science.
[edit]Your example of sodium is extremely interesting, since although there’s debate about how high a limit is dangerous, there’s no debate at all that entirely removing it from your diet would be… not good. So do you actually have a workable alternative for how things should work in that particular kind of situation? Because you almost seem to be saying that we just shouldn’t rely on scientifically-backed recommendations at all.
And I’m familiar with them. My point was that problematic and unintuitive properties of SSRIs prove nothing about grapefruit. And as for whether a food is unsafe if infected shit is applied to it… umm…
but it is the same class of hyperbolic claims that FB makes. i.e. take something with a kernel of truth and blow it waaay out of proportion.
if i was an unethical food blogger i could probably make millions promoting pseudo-scientific claims. (never eat that one weird fruit that blaaahhhh… :D)
btw, first link on google.
1 Like
I definitely don’t want to give the impression that I don’t trust scientific evidence. I don’t trust the FDA. They have a poor track record.
It’s a known carcinogen (its metabolites anyway). It’s the levels of safety that are in question. The FDA says the amount we get in bread is safe. This is why I used sodium of an example. It illustrates that medically, there is often disagreement on what a safe level is. With salt, I must intake some to survive. I know of no such dietary requirement for azodicarbonamide. When it comes to your health and your food, erring on the side of safety is the wise choice. The EU and Australia seem to agree with me on that point.
Yeah, commonly known effect.
I guess what I’m wondering is whether you think that is a thing about grapefruit, or a thing about SSRIs.
but once you get past the class of chemicals required to survive, it isn’t a black and white decision, it is a risk scale. i personally love the taste of azodicarbonamide, but charred food is currently giving me cancer (hyperbole, and not true, but a rhetorical device :D).
also, i think the FDA has a spectacular record. it is an inhuman task they have been given, and their results are based on the best science they have.
1 Like
I don’t recall seeing any recent movie scenes with animals that caused me so much discomfort. Not sure why it did, but it most certainly did.
ah, i see, thanks!
if you have to take an SSRI, then the ‘blame’ goes to the grapefruit. it is the one that inhibits the drug interaction.
Oldboy, came out in 2003. . Apparently they had to do like 5 takes, and the Buddhist star felt the need to atone at a temple afterwards. Its a pretty screwed up movie, this is effectively the least fucked up thing about it.
1 Like
Yes, the EU always errs on the side of caution while the FDA doesn’t.
Like with cyclamate, which showed indications of causing testicular atrophy… no, wait, that one looks like it’s currently banned by the FDA but is permitted in the EU.
Ok, sassafras oil, then, which was… banned in the U.S. long before the EU, due to being a possible carcinogen (though both the US and the EU have loopholes (and different loopholes, at that!) for the ban, because the risks for exposures and methods of exposure are not straightforward and fully known).
No one entirely “errs on the side of safety” in all cases when it comes to food. If we did, humans would have died of starvation long ago, because just about anything you eat has long-term health implications. There comes a point where you have to say, based on evidence, “at these levels, this doesn’t appear to have an appreciable risk.” Sometimes that can be wrong, but if tests have shown that there likely isn’t a risk then what more do you want? There are no guarantees here, only levels of risk.
4 Likes
well said (he remarks as he downs completely legal-in-the-czech-republic absinthe, with wormwood).
4 Likes
Also, Kinder Surprise. You guys are missing out.
3 Likes
The FDA says the amount we get in bread is safe.
Yes, because the studies on it say they can’t find any reason to think it’s unsafe. Originally I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary, you failed to do so.
Breathing in large amounts of azodicarbonamide isn’t safe by the looks of things, but neither is breathing in large amounts of water and you’re on record saying you don’t want to ban that. So what’s the difference?
1 Like
#OMG PLASTICS IN FOOD!
2 Likes
