4 ms·

Which is why it's a tragedy that the EU chemical regulations weren't allowed to be based on a "you can use it if you can show it's safe" instead of "you can use

Which is why it's a tragedy that the EU chemical regulations weren't allowed to be based on a "you can use it if you can show it's safe" instead of "you can use it until someone else shows it's unsafe" principle. That would have been good.

Karunamon 6y ago
Also impossible. Proving something safe is like proving a negative - proving a lack of something (harm).
- bawolff 6y ago
  That doesn't mean you can't require a certain amount of safety testing.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    You can only reasonably test for acute effects. Chronic effects are only ever going to be found in large cohorts (i.e. public consumption) over a long period of time.
bzb6 6y ago
It would be impossible to prove that a new chemical is safe until after decades of widespread use. Lab tests can only go so far
Gunax 6y ago
I am not sure how this would work. For instance, what animals would it have to be tested on? This time it was Salmon in puget sound, but next time it could be geese in Alberta, or lizards in Argentina. It just seems like too big of a problem space.
- throwaheyy 6y ago
  The mode of transfer is urban stormwater runoff. Proving the replacement chemical is safe for the salmon is good enough.
kjs3 6y ago
Define 'safe' and 'unsafe'. That's not as easy as it seems, and it would be the source of endless bickering between business and the regulators.