> the less strict rule shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as "putting corporations before health" or the like; it's absolutely possible that US consumer safety bodies determined that the added risk from some tradeoff isn't high enough to warrant the additional cost, but...
Not that I'd blame it on figs, but one look at the US healthcare system (i.e., costs, as well as the health / illnesses of the people who need that system) and it highlights the need to question *everything*.
The problem with say "X is low amounts is safe" and "Y is liw amounts is safe" is that we don't understand the effects of X + Y, nor what happens when adding some unknown Z.
The more that comes out on gut bacteria (i.e., maybe the human body can handle X and/or Y, but our bacteria friends can not) the more our safety levels look suspect.
Not that I'd blame it on figs, but one look at the US healthcare system (i.e., costs, as well as the health / illnesses of the people who need that system) and it highlights the need to question *everything*.
The problem with say "X is low amounts is safe" and "Y is liw amounts is safe" is that we don't understand the effects of X + Y, nor what happens when adding some unknown Z.
The more that comes out on gut bacteria (i.e., maybe the human body can handle X and/or Y, but our bacteria friends can not) the more our safety levels look suspect.