3 ms·

Here's an example from a different field. Regulation of checmicals. In Europe the regulatory framework is called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorizat

Here's an example from a different field. Regulation of checmicals. In Europe the regulatory framework is called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), while the US uses a regulatory framework called TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). There is a major difference: (from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825) : REACH requires companies to develop information on chemicals' effects on human health and the environment, while TSCA does not require companies to develop such information absent EPA rule-making requiring them to do so. While TSCA does not require companies to develop information on chemicals before they enter commerce (new chemicals), companies are required to provide EPA any information that may already exist on a chemical's impact on human health or the environment. Companies do not have to develop information on the health or environmental impacts of chemicals already in commerce (existing chemicals) unless EPA formally promulgates a rule requiring them to do so. So, simplified: In Eurpe a company must provide proof that a chemical compound is not harmful, while in the US a compound is considered legal as long its harm can't be proven. While the US approach is certainly better for commerce I very much prefer the European approach. I consider the general health of the population much more important than the money that can be made by private companies. And I think the example pretty nicely demonstrates the difference in attitude between the continents.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> I consider the general health of the population much more important than the money that can be made by private companies. There's a feedback loop in the cost of innovation. Better medicines, fertilisers, preservatives, insulators, et cetera have increased both the health of the populace and wealth of their creators. Ceteris paribus, in a world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society will outcompete the more cautious one.
- Dwolb 10y ago
  > Ceteris paribus, in a world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society will outcompete the more cautious one. Sure but we don't know how bad the negative externalities of accumulation of human-made chemicals in our natural environment are until we get there. We could be outcompeting in the short term with very large negative societal effects in the long term.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  I think that's a bit simplified. In pharmaceuticals, the regulation is absolutely vital for the innovation loop, because it sets an objective standard for demonstrating progress. If you cut out all pharmaceutical regulation, you would get limited, biased trials 'proving' that a treatment worked, and then an even more massive marketing department behind it. There's a multibillion dollar industry in skincare, but are skin treatments any better now than they were 50 years ago? Nobody really knows, because large scale, long-term trials are expensive, and there is no regulatory requirement to rigorously demonstrate how well your product works. Similarly, in chemicals regulation, an unregulated industry works towards the cheapest, most effective solution for their problem, but ignores the externalities. If the pesticide increases your yield, why would you care if it lowers the insect life which pollenates the crops for the neighbouring farms? The neighbouring farms aren't paying your bills. If your furniture treatment is cheaper than the alternative, who cares if it causes marginal damage to the health of the people using it over 20 years? In any case, it will be very difficult for anyone to tie any damage back to your product, so the reputation risk is limited. Again, the regulation is required to set a standard of progress - you don't just want innovation in cost and efficacy for the manufacturer, you want innovation relative to an objective standard which takes into account other impacts. I do agree, though, that reducing cost for testing is also very important, to reduce the barrier to entry. Making testing too expensive also does damage. The EU actually had a clinical trials directive which proved to be too onerous, made the trials too expensive, and some measures had to be repealed. So it is a balancing act, but to me it's clear that both sides are important.
tropo 10y ago
This works out nicely for Europe, with the USA being the guinea pig. I could imagine Europe opposing any change to the US law. The USA tries things out, and Europe reaps the benefits.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> I consider the general health of the population much more important than the money that can be made by private companies. There's a feedback loop in the cost of innovation. Better medicines, fertilisers, preservatives, insulators, et cetera have increased both the health of the populace and wealth of their creators. Ceteris paribus, in a world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society will outcompete the more cautious one.

Dwolb 10y ago
> Ceteris paribus, in a world with more innovative potential than downside, the less cautious society will outcompete the more cautious one. Sure but we don't know how bad the negative externalities of accumulation of human-made chemicals in our natural environment are until we get there. We could be outcompeting in the short term with very large negative societal effects in the long term.
Brakenshire 10y ago
I think that's a bit simplified. In pharmaceuticals, the regulation is absolutely vital for the innovation loop, because it sets an objective standard for demonstrating progress. If you cut out all pharmaceutical regulation, you would get limited, biased trials 'proving' that a treatment worked, and then an even more massive marketing department behind it. There's a multibillion dollar industry in skincare, but are skin treatments any better now than they were 50 years ago? Nobody really knows, because large scale, long-term trials are expensive, and there is no regulatory requirement to rigorously demonstrate how well your product works. Similarly, in chemicals regulation, an unregulated industry works towards the cheapest, most effective solution for their problem, but ignores the externalities. If the pesticide increases your yield, why would you care if it lowers the insect life which pollenates the crops for the neighbouring farms? The neighbouring farms aren't paying your bills. If your furniture treatment is cheaper than the alternative, who cares if it causes marginal damage to the health of the people using it over 20 years? In any case, it will be very difficult for anyone to tie any damage back to your product, so the reputation risk is limited. Again, the regulation is required to set a standard of progress - you don't just want innovation in cost and efficacy for the manufacturer, you want innovation relative to an objective standard which takes into account other impacts. I do agree, though, that reducing cost for testing is also very important, to reduce the barrier to entry. Making testing too expensive also does damage. The EU actually had a clinical trials directive which proved to be too onerous, made the trials too expensive, and some measures had to be repealed. So it is a balancing act, but to me it's clear that both sides are important.

tropo 10y ago

This works out nicely for Europe, with the USA being the guinea pig. I could imagine Europe opposing any change to the US law. The USA tries things out, and Europe reaps the benefits.