A Wall Street Journal editorial stated:

We wrote recently about a proposed Environmental Protection Agency ban on daminozide, a chemical used to improve the growth and shelf life of apples. EPA’s independent scientific advisory panel last week ruled against the proposed prohibition. “None of the present studies are considered suitable” to warrant banning daminozide, the panel said. It also criticized the “technical soundness of the agency’s quantitative risk assessments” for the chemical. EPA can still reject the panel’s advice, but we see some evidence that the agency is taking such evaluations seriously. There is no better way to do that than to keep a firm grip on the scientific method, demanding plausible evidence when useful substances are claimed to be a danger to mankind [35].

Does the Journal’s interpretation of the scientific method implicitly take the null hypothesis to be that daminozide is safe or that it is dangerous?