> eg. putting teflon or PFAS in literally everything because why not. But it wasn't because "why not" it was because there were very concrete benefits. This

> eg. putting teflon or PFAS in literally everything because why not. But it wasn't because "why not" it was because there were very concrete benefits. This is why the fundamental issue is policy, not science - the science can only help you understand a situation better, it can't answer "what is the right amount of risk to take". The precautionary approach you suggest isn't a new idea, but it has very real negative economic effect at minimum, and a complex relationship with other issues. Collectively, somehow (e.g. legislative bodies) we have to attempt the impossible task of finding the "right" position on the scale between don't-trust-anything-new to anything goes. Clearly both these extremes are problematic, but balancing them is really hard.