4 ms·

> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.

by ashildr 5y ago

ironmagma 5y ago
How can you prove anything safe without data on its use? Isn't that sort of a chicken and egg problem?
- sooheon 5y ago
  Should the data be collected without consent by exposing the public to it for decades or provided by clinical trials funded by the company that wants to bring it to market?
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    You are asking for the impossible. It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects. Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :)
    - sooheon 5y ago
      > It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects. If any effects are unmeasurable with standard clinical trial practices, then it's safe. People care about things that actually are harmful. > Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :) Which is why I never asked for it. Safety standards are always phrased positively. OSHA doesn't say "workplaces must not be dangerous", they say "wear a hard hat, the employer shall do ___, employees must not be forced to do ___". It's very easy to regulate that "new compounds must be shown not to affect human hormone levels at X concentration, must be shown not to be carcinogenic in Y model of cancer" etc.
      - ironmagma 5y ago
        Even still, PFAS started being used in the 50s. If it took us this long to figure out there is something dangerous about it, chances are a small study would not have found anything either. We’ve had lots of time and a huge N.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  You collect data on a smaller scale, like clinical trials do for medications. There's a big range between "no data" and "we've enrolled eight billion humans in an uncontrolled trial".
BoxOfRain 5y ago
Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting smoking (which I eventually managed and never could have done without a vape) and it was so poorly thought out I'm convinced the tobacco industry had a hand in drafting it! The precautionary principle has its merits, but I think it's often cargo-culted and its limitations not well articulated. In cases such as GM crops where the stakes may within a human lifetime be "devestating famine" versus "less famine", or cases like vaping where although the harm is unknown it's certainly less than what it's replacing (vaping is uncontroversially less harmful than smoking) the precautionary principle actually has a harmful effect in itself.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  Sure, banning GMO's outright would be a huge problem, but is it so awful that they be tested first? I don't know if they test for this, but GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive species which could potentially tilt things towards the "devastating famine" side of the equation. I don't think the ecological concern is what most people worry about when they think GMOs, and I'm not of the mind that GMOs = Bad, but I think we owe it to ourselves to study the ecological impact of GMOs we plan to grow widely.
  - BoxOfRain 5y ago
    I think what the argument comes down to is how much risk we're willing to tolerate as a society. There's definitely a middle ground to be had between an under-cautious world where things like leaded petrol and thalidomide are on the market causing immense human suffering, and an overly cautious world where progress is suffocated by the glacially slow wheels of bureaucracy and endless spurious "safety" objections by lobbyists attempting to kill their competition in its crib. Having said that, the EU is a bit of a unique specimen when it comes to things like this. I'm perhaps being a little unfair to the precautionary principle per se when I suppose it's more the EU's implementation of it that I'm criticising. I don't want this to come across as an anti-EU polemic either, there's obviously pros and cons here and I realise the EU is very much in a class by itself when it comes to political polities which make comparisons quite difficult. My own biases are probably at play here too, for various reasons I'd say my risk tolerance is probably higher than most.
refurb 5y ago
No, that’s not how the EU does it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex A drug that was highly suspected of killing several hundred to several thousand people stayed on the market for decades. A similar drug with similar risks was pulled from the US market 24 years earlier.
- Lutzb 5y ago
  Would you say Benflourex is an outlier or the norm regarding the EUs stance?
wiz21c 5y ago
If you think about REACH I heard it's not what it does (although it sounds like it does). The lobbies were there...

> from "safe until proven otherwise" to "unsafe until (independently) proven safe" That’s about how the EU does it.

ironmagma 5y ago

How can you prove anything safe without data on its use? Isn't that sort of a chicken and egg problem?

sooheon 5y ago
Should the data be collected without consent by exposing the public to it for decades or provided by clinical trials funded by the company that wants to bring it to market?
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  You are asking for the impossible. It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects. Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :)
  - sooheon 5y ago
    > It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects. If any effects are unmeasurable with standard clinical trial practices, then it's safe. People care about things that actually are harmful. > Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :) Which is why I never asked for it. Safety standards are always phrased positively. OSHA doesn't say "workplaces must not be dangerous", they say "wear a hard hat, the employer shall do ___, employees must not be forced to do ___". It's very easy to regulate that "new compounds must be shown not to affect human hormone levels at X concentration, must be shown not to be carcinogenic in Y model of cancer" etc.
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      Even still, PFAS started being used in the 50s. If it took us this long to figure out there is something dangerous about it, chances are a small study would not have found anything either. We’ve had lots of time and a huge N.
ceejayoz 5y ago
You collect data on a smaller scale, like clinical trials do for medications. There's a big range between "no data" and "we've enrolled eight billion humans in an uncontrolled trial".

BoxOfRain 5y ago

Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting smoking (which I eventually managed and never could have done without a vape) and it was so poorly thought out I'm convinced the tobacco industry had a hand in drafting it! The precautionary principle has its merits, but I think it's often cargo-culted and its limitations not well articulated. In cases such as GM crops where the stakes may within a human lifetime be "devestating famine" versus "less famine", or cases like vaping where although the harm is unknown it's certainly less than what it's replacing (vaping is uncontroversially less harmful than smoking) the precautionary principle actually has a harmful effect in itself.

jszymborski 5y ago
Sure, banning GMO's outright would be a huge problem, but is it so awful that they be tested first? I don't know if they test for this, but GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive species which could potentially tilt things towards the "devastating famine" side of the equation. I don't think the ecological concern is what most people worry about when they think GMOs, and I'm not of the mind that GMOs = Bad, but I think we owe it to ourselves to study the ecological impact of GMOs we plan to grow widely.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  I think what the argument comes down to is how much risk we're willing to tolerate as a society. There's definitely a middle ground to be had between an under-cautious world where things like leaded petrol and thalidomide are on the market causing immense human suffering, and an overly cautious world where progress is suffocated by the glacially slow wheels of bureaucracy and endless spurious "safety" objections by lobbyists attempting to kill their competition in its crib. Having said that, the EU is a bit of a unique specimen when it comes to things like this. I'm perhaps being a little unfair to the precautionary principle per se when I suppose it's more the EU's implementation of it that I'm criticising. I don't want this to come across as an anti-EU polemic either, there's obviously pros and cons here and I realise the EU is very much in a class by itself when it comes to political polities which make comparisons quite difficult. My own biases are probably at play here too, for various reasons I'd say my risk tolerance is probably higher than most.

refurb 5y ago

No, that’s not how the EU does it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benfluorex A drug that was highly suspected of killing several hundred to several thousand people stayed on the market for decades. A similar drug with similar risks was pulled from the US market 24 years earlier.

Lutzb 5y ago
Would you say Benflourex is an outlier or the norm regarding the EUs stance?

wiz21c 5y ago

If you think about REACH I heard it's not what it does (although it sounds like it does). The lobbies were there...