The point is, that until you know exactly what procedure led to the conclusion "damages DNA", it is impossible to understand the significance or seriousness of the claim.
If it's no more harmful that the char on a steak (whcih a number of researchers have claimed is carcinogenic) then one can put the threat into perspective.
If it damages DNA in vitro but produces no clinical symtoms, then it's really not clear if the statement is worth worrying about at all.
If it had a documented history of carcinogenic or teratological effects then, I reiterate, it would be off the market. Remember cyclamates some years back. Widely used and then pulled when studies show carcinogenic risk.
__________________ Dave Bowers
"First, slice an onion..." |