We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
the main issue with grass is that it's a self designation that the company basically says they present to the FDA that there is some evidence that they have cooked up that it is generally recognized as safe and then it basically gets approval so it's not like really verified by the FDA that it's safe and we now have 10,000 food additives that are allowed to be put in our food Europe has only 400
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
this is the grass standards generally recognized as safe standards that are just a farce with the FDA nobody actually really has to do any testing of any additive we have over 10,000 now in the US probably versus 4 to 500 in Europe
This is one of the reasons that the grass standards, the generally recognized as safe standards, I think they need updating. There have been over 5,000 chemicals in our food supply in the United States that have gotten through this grass standard in the last 20 to 40 years. In Europe, there's only about 500 of these compounds, which is probably 500 too many.