24 ms·
That sort of approach worries me. It is literally impossible to prove safety. It is only possible to prove harmfulness. If you were dedicated to a whitelist
by otakucode 7y ago
That sort of approach worries me. It is literally impossible to prove safety. It is only possible to prove harmfulness. If you were dedicated to a whitelist model, nothing could ever be permitted because you would always require more testing. There is also an inherent problem with arguing "why should X be legal" instead of "why should X be illegal". One argues from a viewpoint of infinite restriction as your default state.
- swsieber 7y agoThat's being pedantic. Europe uses a whiteout model, and it seems to be working. There are things being permitted. And it's arguably safer than the U.S. blacklist model. You can do reasonable safety checks. Edit: It's arguably safer because the whitelist should be a subset of what the blacklist allows.
- chrismeller 7y agoIt works because you have guinea pigs who will test it for you. Even if it weren’t the US there would be other countries... As another comment pointed out, you can never prove something is safe, so the whitelist model is inherently flawed. Asbestos was once considered safe, that’s why it was used as insulation. Turns out not so much under certain circumstances (like when disturbed and released into the air for you to inhale), so now we have to backtrack on that. That’s life.
- tpush 7y ago> As another comment pointed out, you can never prove something is safe, so the whitelist model is inherently flawed. Asbestos was once considered safe, that’s why it was used as insulation. The rational conclusion there is that you should test more, not move to a blacklist model that allows everything until people drop dead, develop a serious illness or whatever.
- tzs 7y agoThe whitelist model doesn't require that you prove something is safe in all conceivable circumstances present and future before whitelisting it. It just means you test the common and the reasonably predictable cases first, and compare to other products in the same category if any, so that you can be reasonably confident in it before approving.
- plandis 7y agoIs it arguable? Is there data that shows a strong correlation between health issues in US patients and the cosmetics they use?
- athrowaway3z 7y agoArguably : it may be argued I agree with you that data is important. But yes, it can absolutely be argued about with reasonable arguments without data.
- hutzlibu 7y agoI don't think so, but that might be because nobody tracks those data.
- briandear 7y ago> it's arguably safer Actual data please? How is it safer? Do we have data on people dying from cosmetics? What is the differential between woman life expectancy in Germany vs. the US? It's about the same in both countries for women. So are we going to argue that European cosmetics are "safer?" What's the actual data say?
- tpush 7y agoWell, the dangerousness of cosmetics probably doesn't express itself in death/life statistics. The whitelisting model used in Europe is used to ensure that whatever substance causes the least amount of issues possible if released. You know, interactions with skin conditions, maybe breathing complications if inhaled etc. The basic tradeoff here is potential (minor or not) health hazard vs. profit opportunities of companies. Characteristically the EU chooses the first and the US the second.
- eeZah7Ux 7y agoThat's exactly how a precautionary principle should be applied. You always tests something extensively and only after a long enough time you consider it safe. The US should have learnt from DDT and countless other disasters.