I would add CFCs to that list. But you needed adequate replacements and a much more clear and present danger for those things to happen. “Worms are 5% smaller

I would add CFCs to that list. But you needed adequate replacements and a much more clear and present danger for those things to happen. “Worms are 5% smaller in this study” is a shade better than a conspiracy theory, not something that will motivate massive changes in global manufacturing and packaging standards. We do know it can be done, because we’ve worked historically to make big changes. Unfortunately there’s been a lot of lost credibility in environmental science over the last few decades, and at the same time society seems to be significantly more divided over issues that at first blush might smell like a crusade. The rules are you need something that’s equally as good at perhaps a slightly higher initial cost (an adequate replacement) and a clear and present danger (e.g. there’s a massive hole in our ozone layer, we can measure it directly, we know exactly what’s causing it, and if it keeps getting bigger we can’t ever go outside again).