3 ms·

If it is showing up in bloodstreams it needed FDA approval. That we can do these studies is an unacceptable regulatory gap. Given enough substances it is only a

If it is showing up in bloodstreams it needed FDA approval. That we can do these studies is an unacceptable regulatory gap. Given enough substances it is only a matter of time until we will eventually be doomed by this incompetence if our incompetence of treating releasing CO2 in any quantity as harmless doesn't doom us first.

LatteLazy 5y ago
I believe you only need FDA approval if you sell something as a medical device/treatment etc. If you sell it as <plastic thing> and some residual chemical ends up in someone's bloodstream, that's fine. This is because millions of chemicals are perpetually floating around in our bloodstreams (and elsewhere). The FDA may issue warnings and bans. But to do so usually requires some evidence something is harmful. This study does NOT provide any evidence of that. Hence it was a total waste of time and energy. Edit: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do >The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. (Goes on to include tobacco and terrorism)
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  The FDA evaluates food packaging and optimistically dismisses chemicals entering the consumer. But let's assume they don't, you are saying that given a new chemical added to your bloodstream you want to assume it is safe based on 0 evidence when presented with weak evidence for what it actually does?
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    I'm just saying: * The FDA aren't interested in 90% of products, they mostly just do food and medicine. * There are million of chemicals, assessing them all is an impossibly large task even for the US government. * There is no evidence at all that this chemical is dangerous. If there were that would be different. But there isn't. * I'm not saying it is (they are) safe. Just that there is no evidence of danger here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

LatteLazy 5y ago

I believe you only need FDA approval if you sell something as a medical device/treatment etc. If you sell it as <plastic thing> and some residual chemical ends up in someone's bloodstream, that's fine. This is because millions of chemicals are perpetually floating around in our bloodstreams (and elsewhere). The FDA may issue warnings and bans. But to do so usually requires some evidence something is harmful. This study does NOT provide any evidence of that. Hence it was a total waste of time and energy. Edit: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do >The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. (Goes on to include tobacco and terrorism)

smorgusofborg 5y ago
The FDA evaluates food packaging and optimistically dismisses chemicals entering the consumer. But let's assume they don't, you are saying that given a new chemical added to your bloodstream you want to assume it is safe based on 0 evidence when presented with weak evidence for what it actually does?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I'm just saying: * The FDA aren't interested in 90% of products, they mostly just do food and medicine. * There are million of chemicals, assessing them all is an impossibly large task even for the US government. * There is no evidence at all that this chemical is dangerous. If there were that would be different. But there isn't. * I'm not saying it is (they are) safe. Just that there is no evidence of danger here.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]