I’m sceptical of this study too, but a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation is not meaningful in the context of long term health effects.
It basically means that we know what the chemical is and that we’re pretty sure it won’t kill you or even make the average person sick, at least not right away. It does not mean the chemical won’t harm someone at any dose, frequency, time scale, ROA, etc.
GRAS designation for a novel chemical (in the US) is an easy hurdle to clear, but the fact that a chemical even has it means more study is needed.
Well then IDK what I should call a compound that is actually considered generally safe, as in something that has been used for decades with no known problems.
I’m sceptical of this study too, but a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation is not meaningful in the context of long term health effects.
It basically means that we know what the chemical is and that we’re pretty sure it won’t kill you or even make the average person sick, at least not right away. It does not mean the chemical won’t harm someone at any dose, frequency, time scale, ROA, etc.
GRAS designation for a novel chemical (in the US) is an easy hurdle to clear, but the fact that a chemical even has it means more study is needed.
Well then IDK what I should call a compound that is actually considered generally safe, as in something that has been used for decades with no known problems.