Since I'm bashing on fallacies here, I'd also like to call out the naturalistic fallacy as a frequently abused one.
If your ancestors managed to survive in the natural environment, and there is something novel in the synthetic environment, then the synthetic alternative does in fact deserve more scrutiny because you have less evidence about it.
"Natural doesn't mean safe" type reasoning only really applies when the natural and synthetic thing are being put in equally novel situations--which is a pretty rare setup. Like, how often do you consider eating a plant which nobody has ever eaten before?
If your ancestors managed to survive in the natural environment, and there is something novel in the synthetic environment, then the synthetic alternative does in fact deserve more scrutiny because you have less evidence about it.
"Natural doesn't mean safe" type reasoning only really applies when the natural and synthetic thing are being put in equally novel situations--which is a pretty rare setup. Like, how often do you consider eating a plant which nobody has ever eaten before?