Ok, if you’re saying something in people has changed in the last ten years, then what is it?
I’m not buying the hand lotion example. As you said, “If the peanuts themselves were “toxic”, then it would affect everyone who eats them, and not just a few people.” If that works with peanuts, it also works with other products.
“Ok, if you’re saying something in people has changed in the last ten years, then what is it?”
No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that any premise that starts off assuming that you know what is different, whether it is the peanuts, the people, etc, is a bad premise to arrive at the facts. You’re already biasing your investigation from the get go. You should instead look at all the possible explanations, without bias, to see what is most likely.
“As you said, “If the peanuts themselves were “toxic”, then it would affect everyone who eats them, and not just a few people.” If that works with peanuts, it also works with other products.”
There is a big difference between a substance being an allergen and a substance being toxic. A toxic substance would affect everyone to some degree, with some variations due to individual tolerance. An allergen only affects those who are susceptible to that particular allergen, but anyone can become susceptible to an allergen with enough exposure. So the lotion theory, at least on its face, is a perfectly sensible theory, while the “GM makes food toxic” theory is easily demonstrated to be false.