Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Saline9515 | on: EU-banned pesticides found in rice, tea and spices
The toxic dose is a vague term. You may not die from exposure, but you can still have effects, such as infertility, cancers or endocrine disruption.
fasterik | parent
If we really want to be precise, we should talk about parts per million (PPM). Scientific research establishes a safe level of consumption in terms of PPM, below which there are no detectable health effects. Generally when you see alarmism about "pesticides found in food" they're orders of magnitude below the PPM that would have any effect on human health.
Saline9515 | root | parent | next
Exactly, scientific research established that DDT was perfectly safe, too! Scientists even used to eat it to "prove" that it was safe.

In reality it depends, being biology, "safe level" is also very relative since you don't know every effect the substance has on the body.

That's why pesticides and other chemicals such as bisphenols are regularly phased out, since effects can appear long after "scientific research" established it was "safe". Or it can affect certain populations, such as farmers, who get a high dose, or children, who are more sensitive than adults.

Others, such DDT, lead or cadmium, are accumulated in the body over a long period, and then start to show effects, even when the person has stopped eating it. Or can find their way later the food chain: Inuits would get poisoned when eating polar bear's meat, that was full of DDT from fields on the other side of the globe.

fasterik | root | parent
We update our beliefs as we get new data. There's not much else we can do.

There's a common thought pattern among conspiracy theorists. "Some conspiracies turn out to be real" so that justifies their belief in their very specific conspiracy theory. The same pattern occurs when we talk about chemicals in our diet or the environment. "Some chemicals turn out to be dangerous" but that doesn't prove that a specific concentration of a specific chemical is doing anything, unless we have data to support the claim.

Saline9515 | root | parent | next
Precaution principle exists, and in the case of food safety, "getting new data" make take years or be very costly.

For instance, bisphenols in plastics baby bottles were proved problematic after decades of use. Precaution principle would have recommended to avoid them (especially since they weren't necessary).

It's not trivial, and many businesses would rather see their consumers die than cut their margins. I remember buying some custom furniture; when it arrived it reeked of varnish smell. I called the factory, told them they didn't cure it correctly. Manager said "yeah we know, we know it's dangerous but people get cancers years later and you can't identify the source anyway" (true story).

kakacik | root | parent
There is certainly more that we can do. Ie being more careful with introducing new chemicals with largely unknown long term effects.

The burden of proof shouldn't be decades of research seeing thousands of people developing serious health issues and/or dying, and then reacting. It should be on companies, having lengthy and expensive process for approval and then continue reviewing. This is not some app release ffs, we talk about lives and health of billions, how much more we can fail our children if we fail this.

Or you know what, you can do that with you and your kids, but please allow me and my family to use more conservative approach, I am happy to pay a bit extra.

SchemaLoad | root | parent
We have seen over and over again chemicals which are "safe to consume" or "not that bad" actually do have very severe effects. It's just very hard to link cause and effect. When someone dies of cancer we can't pinpoint it to coming from the pesticide on the blueberries they ate a few months ago.

We have all these terrible illnesses that we ascribe to bad luck, and then all of these new chemicals we haven't fully studied yet being sprayed on everything.

fasterik | root | parent
Even things we know for certain aren't "safe to consume" are harmless at small enough doses. If I drink chlorine at 1000 PPM it's going to kill me, but drinking it at 1 PPM (roughly the amount added to drinking water in many places, and well below the level in swimming pools) is considered harmless to humans and kills pathogens, so it's a net positive. It's possible that chlorine at 1 PPM causes cancer, but that's a claim that would require evidence.

The same argument applies to pesticide or any other substance. Without talking about specific numbers, it's just speculation.

Saline9515 | root | parent | next
In the case of pesticides, lower doses may show increased effects, what you say is false.

https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article-abstract/33/3/378/2354...