> trade off that we as a society.. >Regulators have the tough job of balancing the risks, benefits, and science when making the call on whether to accept one.

> trade off that we as a society.. >Regulators have the tough job of balancing the risks, benefits, and science when making the call on whether to accept one. I am curious. How much of the society was involved in making this decision. We can all agree that there is enormous financial pressure from the industry to make such decisions go in its favour, and virtually none to go in favor of the public. So isn't there a chance that eventually such trade offs will go in a direction that is harmful to the public? >Maybe you disagree with it, but someone with a terrible disease waiting on a new life saving treatment might see the issue differently. Sure, but we don't do things this way. You can always find someone who benefits from a community wide applied bad idea. Does not justify the bad idea sadly. This kind of short term, localised thinking might allow the regulatory process to bend heavily under the aforementioned financial pressures, in favour of the industry, and result in great public harm that might go unnoticed for a very long time..