3 ms·

You have the burden of proof reversed.

• jlarocco 7y ago
  That response doesn't make any sense. I didn't agree or disagree with, I simply asked the OP to explain their reasoning. And I also disagree that the burden of proof would be on the "other side". The status quo is trial by jury. That will never change if nobody wants to explain why they think it's bad or what would work better.
  • technothrasher 7y ago
    I believe the burden of proof response was in relation to the statement, "if a company can't demonstrate to a lay person that a chemical isn't dangerous". That would be asking them to "prove a negative" (really, it's proving a universal claim, not a negative claim, but 'negative' is the popular tagline). This cannot ever be done. All you can do is show that there is no credible evidence that it is dangerous. At the point, the burden of proof lies with the the claim that it is, in fact, dangerous.