I think you misread me a bit there. I'm not saying that human diets in 1849 were perfect, by any means.
> "For a given chemical, avoid doses known to have a high probability of harm"
is exactly what I do not want. I don't want to assume everything is safe until it's shown otherwise, after I've eaten it for a decade.
I want to assume things are poison, unless they are shown to be safe. Things eaten in quantity in 1849 generally meet that criteria, minus a few things we now know to be more dangerous than thought back then.
When introducing some new compound meant to replace something in the diet like sugar, it seems much more reasonable to assume that its use may have side effects, until satisfactorily proven otherwise.
> "For a given chemical, avoid doses known to have a high probability of harm"
is exactly what I do not want. I don't want to assume everything is safe until it's shown otherwise, after I've eaten it for a decade.
I want to assume things are poison, unless they are shown to be safe. Things eaten in quantity in 1849 generally meet that criteria, minus a few things we now know to be more dangerous than thought back then.
When introducing some new compound meant to replace something in the diet like sugar, it seems much more reasonable to assume that its use may have side effects, until satisfactorily proven otherwise.