I often wonder how many people died, back in hunter-gather days, while we worked out that this berry was safe to eat but that one had to be peeled, mashed, soaked in human urine and boiled for a week or it made blood pour from your eyes.

Causality, in everything that matters, is almost always obscure, and our Neanderthal forebears may not have been fully across the idea of the control experiment. But now, if last week's Blewett food-labelling review is anything to go by, it seems we too are happy to experiment on ourselves, and our children.

Illustration by Harry Afentoglou Credit:Harry Afentoglou

There are many, many instances where food safety is not clear. Genetic modification, hormone-additives, antibiotics, preservatives, pesticides, trans-fats and allergens are just a few areas where the jury is still out. In every case these extras exist as profit-enhancers, not nutrition-enhancers, and therefore have industry support. But they also arouse consumer suspicion, and quite rightly, for in no case is it proven that these ''food science'' products are, actually, food.

This is a bit of a turn-up. We're used to corporates v the community. We know that developers, miners and bankers are not on ''our'' side. But food is different. It's intimate. And the thought that our food producers - our cheery-faced farmers and bakers - would happily experiment with our well-being is still alarming. More alarming yet, however, is that our government is with them, not us.