Jason says: “But they’re mostly studying Safrole in isolation, as if you’d ever find just 100% pure safrole in a sassafrass tree and nothing else. The failure of reductionism, once again.”

…and this sort of logic refutes almost every experimental test on the effects of any industrial pollutant. After all you’ll never find just 100% pure dioxin, PCB, PAH, Hg, MTBE, and nothing else. The failure of reductionism indeed…

I agree that a large dose of skepticism is in order when attempting to apply federally/industrially funded scientific study to real life foraging, but jesus h. christ,! Skepticism demands greater intellectual rigor.

I would like to point something everyone missed. Safrole was banned in 1976, the same general period that scientists and hippies were in a mad rush to find a ‘legal’ trip.

If anyone has ever tried to sell you “X” or “rolls” they were trying to sell you an extract of the Scented Tree.

Safrole is a known carcinogen. It is also a know stimulant, and was removed from sasafrass and root beer once it was discovered that with a little ammonia, you have MDA on your hands. With a stronger and more controlled chemical, safrole can become MDMA.

Don’t believe the hype. The lobby against illegal drugs was bigger than the root beer lobby. Too bad, so sad. I can prove to you that clean air gives you cancer (O3 radicalizing your cells). Look deeper, always look deeper.

sharqi

Absolutely; each species is different. But, if you’ve got something on your hands that has the same reaction in rats, dogs and chimpanzees, across that breadth of diversity, what do you think are the chances that humans are somehow immune? Sure, if all you do is test one species of animal, you can’t extrapolate that to humans. Every half-descent scientist knows that. That’s not what we’re talking about. Generally, you’re talking about initial rodent tests, and if those work out, primate tests. Anything that holds true all the way from rodents to chimpanzees is going to hold true for humans, too.

And that’s a method that would have considerably more meaning, but safrole never got past the rodent stage. We don’t know what the effects of safrole (alone, in highly concentrated form) would be on primates. But we just declare it carcinogenic…?

That’s where the logic breaks down. Like I said, I’m not saying we should throw the whole line of inquiry out the window, but … some restraint and common sense should be applied.

Lillies (including garlic & onions) are flat out toxic to cats & dogs (they cause kidney failure), but no such reaction exists in humans. Also, caffeic acid in rodents may only be toxic due to transformations performed by bacteria in the rodents’ gut. Rodents also interact differently with arsenic.

Absolutely; each species is different. But, if you’ve got something on your hands that has the same reaction in rats, dogs and chimpanzees, across that breadth of diversity, what do you think are the chances that humans are somehow immune? Sure, if all you do is test one species of animal, you can’t extrapolate that to humans. Every half-descent scientist knows that. That’s not what we’re talking about. Generally, you’re talking about initial rodent tests, and if those work out, primate tests. Anything that holds true all the way from rodents to chimpanzees is going to hold true for humans, too.

Toxins always do damage. The dose doesn’t matter. The only question is how much. You can have a mild toxin that just does a little bit of damage, so taking just a little bit of it won’t matter much. It’s still doing damage, just not enough to matter much.

It’s not quite so clear cut. Many minerals can be toxic in large enough doses (iron, copper, potassium, etc), but are necessary in small amounts.

In general, I go with the “Little of This, Little of That Method”. If you consume a huge variety of food (obviously, avoiding truly toxic food), you’ll get everything you need w/o a harmful dose of anything.

We’re animals, too, after all, and most of the things that happen to rats also happen to us.

I’ve been looking at this lately, and, I’m actually becoming more & more skeptical of this line of thinking. Lillies (including garlic & onions) are flat out toxic to cats & dogs (they cause kidney failure), but no such reaction exists in humans. Also, caffeic acid in rodents may only be toxic due to transformations performed by bacteria in the rodents’ gut. Rodents also interact differently with arsenic.

I don’t think we should toss out “what happens to this animal when it consumes such-and-such”, but it appears that a grain of salt is in order. This grain of salt combined w/ the previously mentioned strategy of using only a concentrated isolate leads me to look pretty critically at such claims of toxicity.

Great photo!

Well now, I did catch the sleeping beauty reference, and I want to say that this was beautifully told. You have a gift for evoking the beauty and truth of plant.

Thank you. That’s a compliment that really means a lot to me.

too bad the fda doesn’t have the sense to use the whole plant on HUMANS, they might learn something.

I doubt that’s the problem. Humans are animals, so if there’s something that has the same effect on a rat as it does on a chimp, that’s a hell of a lot bigger range than from chimp to human. We’re animals, too, after all, and most of the things that happen to rats also happen to us. But they’re mostly studying Safrole in isolation, as if you’d ever find just 100% pure safrole in a sassafrass tree and nothing else. The failure of reductionism, once again.

Can someone help explain to me what exactly is a toxin? It gets muddled because dosage always comes into play, and that’s muddled because just about anything in high enough doses is a deadly, even water.

Water becomes deadly because you’re overwhelming your system, not because water itself has any negative effect on the human body. Toxins always do damage. The dose doesn’t matter. The only question is how much. You can have a mild toxin that just does a little bit of damage, so taking just a little bit of it won’t matter much. It’s still doing damage, just not enough to matter much. Whereas with water, it generally doesn’t do any damage at all.

However, a plant that is technically toxic can be acceptable for occasional medicinal purposes.

Can someone help explain to me what exactly is a toxin? It gets muddled because dosage always comes into play, and that’s muddled because just about anything in high enough doses is a deadly, even water. I feel like this obfuscation is probably often deliberate on the part of those putting posisons into us and our environment, but I’d really love for someone to put this into perspective, and give me a grounding for determining whether people are just greenwashing or expressing legitimate concern.

Thanks y’all.