Toxicology Trap

The Toxicology Trap: Why Nutrition Science Needs a New Paradigm

In her thought-provoking article, “The Toxicology Trap: Why Nutrition Science Must Move Beyond Causal Thinking and Include Neurodiversity and Stress Models,” Lori Hogenkamp challenges the way we approach nutrition, toxicity, and food safety. The piece exposes the flaws of the traditional toxicology model and calls for a stress scienceapproach that accounts for long-term, cumulative, and systemic health effects of food and additives.

Key Takeaways:

1. The “Prove It” Problem in Nutrition Science

   • The toxicology model relies on linear dose-response relationships—the idea that only high doses of a substance cause harm.

   • Corporations use this logic to dismiss concerns about additives, demanding direct proof that one ingredient causes disease.

   • This approach fails to recognize the long-term, low-dose exposures and synergistic effects of multiple food chemicals over time.

2. Why Ultra-Processed Foods Are a Systemic Problem

   • They don’t just “cause” obesity or diabetes, but dysregulate metabolic stress responses over time.

   • They interfere with energy processing, inflammation control, and hunger signaling, making long-term metabolic health worse.

   • Nutrition science needs to move beyond calorie counting and focus on how food interacts with stress and metabolism.

3. The Need for a Stress Science Model

   • Instead of trying to isolate single causes of disease, we must examine how food impacts biological stress systems.

   • Some food additives don’t just “cause” ADHD or neurological issues, but may exacerbate existing neurobiological stressors.

   • Chronic exposure to food toxins alters epigenetics and mitochondrial function, affecting how bodies adapt across generations.

4. How Food Policy Must Change

   • Regulations should account for cumulative and synergistic effects, not just individual ingredient safety.

   • School nutrition needs to move beyond calories to include metabolic and cognitive effects of food.

   • Personalized nutrition strategies should consider bio-neurotype diversity, as different bodies respond uniquely to foods.

Key Quote:

“If we keep playing by the old rules—trying to isolate single causes and ‘prove’ harm in a linear way—we will keep losing to industries that know how to manipulate that system in their favor. But if we embrace stress science, complexity, and diversity in how we understand nutrition and toxicity, we can finally move the conversation forward.”

Read the Full Article:

For a deeper dive into these critical ideas, read Lori Hogenkamp’s full article on Medium:
The Toxicology Trap: Why Nutrition Science Must Move Beyond Causal Thinking and Include Neurodiversity and Stress Models

Final Thoughts:

This article is a wake-up call. If we truly want to reform food policy and improve public health, we must stop playing by outdated scientific rules and start adopting a systems-based, stress-aware, and neurodiverse approach to nutrition. Food is medicine, but only if we understand how it shapes health beyond simplistic cause-and-effect reasoning.