12 ms·
EU considers banning use of up to 12,000 toxic chemicals
- _9rq6 4y agosri lanka went only-organic for their agricultural produce. look what happened to their yield... When govt bans, its the people who pay the price.
- sofixa 4y agoIt's inapplicable. Sri Lanka did this, stupidly, overnight, thus pissing off many farmers and leaving the rest unprepared. Those sorts of policies need to be applied gradually to allow people to adapt.
- The_rationalist 4y ago
- mensetmanusman 4y agoIf they don’t ban sugar you know the list is political :)
- sschueller 4y agoGood because as we just seen in the latest Vartasium video [1], even chemicals or elements we know are toxic for hundreds of years get pushed into the public and cause huge harm. [1] https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA
- dekken_ 4y ago*Veritasium
- bamboozled 4y agoWe recently moved into a house with large garden out the front, so I thought I'd grow some vegetables this summer. I started to till the soil and noticed there was a lot of plastics. I dug deeper and soon realized that our yard was once an area where the previous owners incinerated their rubbish as I started to dig up very old and rusted steel drums which was the incinerator. I spoke to neighbours and they told me everyone used to do this in the area. We excavated the top soil and disposed a lot of it, I still didn't trust it. but it looked nicer. I decided to pave the area and make raised garden beds and fill them with new soil. It's basically impossible to build them out of wood without lining them with something which may have negative health effects to humans or plants. In the end I found an old stone / concrete planter, there's probably something in there bad for me too, but I just couldn't believe that even glazed pots contain lead?
- sschueller 4y agoGlazed pots are probably more likely radioactive[1] than contain lead. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_tile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_tile
- usefulcat 4y ago> I just couldn't believe that even glazed pots contain lead? In the US, even pottery intended for use with food may contain lead, to this day apparently: "..there are no U.S. regulations (to my knowledge/correct me if I am wrong!) that specifically regulate the overall content of lead in pottery—even for pottery pieces intended for use with food and beverages." https://tamararubin.com/topics/does-vintage-and-new-functional-pottery-and-dishware-have-unsafe-levels-of-lead/ https://tamararubin.com/topics/does-vintage-and-new-function...
- mlindner 4y agoBecause lead is in the ground like everywhere. If you dig up some random clay somewhere there's going to be some lead content and who knows what else. This silly idea that pottery is somehow better than mass produced glass is just bad naturalism.
- usefulcat 4y agoOk sure, but that's far from the primary concern here. I'm thinking of things like this: https://tamararubin.com/2021/09/yellow-vintage-fiesta-plate-made-in-usa-563800-ppm-lead-90-ppm-up-is-unsafe-in-modern-items-made-for-kids/ https://tamararubin.com/2021/09/yellow-vintage-fiesta-plate-... ..which is mad of approximately 50% lead, and certainly no accident of nature. And even if it were to occur naturally, that wouldn't make it any less hazardous.
- mlindner 4y agoThose are vintage before the effects were known, for the same reason stuff was glazed with pure uranium oxide commonly (which makes a nice bright orange).
- jerome-jh 4y agoI am somewhat proud that because of UE all the world went ROHS. Let's go forward!
- hadrien01 4y ago> The Brussels effect is the process of unilateral regulatory globalisation caused by the European Union de facto (but not necessarily de jure) externalising its laws outside its borders through market mechanisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
- sofixa 4y agoTIL. I didn't know there's a term for it, but it makes sense, it's a common phenomenon. Hopefully it catches on even more, especially with digital laws like GDPR, and the upcoming Digital Markets and Services Acts.
- stingraycharles 4y agoFor what it’s worth, to me it’s very difficult to understand your comment; I have no idea what UE or ROHS means.
- nix23 4y agoUE = United Emirates you can google the rest ;)
- ask_b123 4y agoYou might already know (judging by the ;)), but here UE definitely refers to the European Union.
- pcstl 4y agoUE = Union Europea, or Unione Europea, or Union Européenne, or União Europeia i.e. European Union using the Romance language acronym RoHS = Restriction of Hazardous Substances, a directive that restricts the materials that can be used in electronic devices, forbidding manufacturers from using many known toxic materials. Initially adopted in the EU but then globally due to the necessity of exporting to the EU.
- ars 4y agoHow about instead of banning specific chemicals by name, ban all chemicals unless studied, and then ban based on study results? (By ban I mean consumer exposure, not ban for use without exposure.)
- dathinab 4y agoThis is somewhat how it works for chemicals in food and medicine in the EU. Through not exactly.
- assttoasstmgr 4y agoThis sort of over-zealous thinking is why I bought a loaf of bread last week that came with a warning stating it "contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer". BREAD. In case anyone is wondering it's because of acrylamide.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bialpio 4y agoI'm not sure if I understand what the problem is here. Would you rather not have this information available? It allows you to look up the info about the chemical and decide for yourself if you're ok with it.
- zokier 4y agoPutting warnings on everything teaches people just to ignore the warnings, which is net-negative effect.
- bialpio 4y agoBut at what level of increased cancer risk do you draw the line? 2x higher risk? 5 / 100 000 higher incidence? Whatever you pick, it won't be the risk level that is acceptable to everyone (as the pandemic shows, people have different tolerance to risk). I think I prefer a world where the consumer is given more information, ideally with sufficient context to make an informed choice.
- FredPret 4y agoI almost think we should have a whitelist of good chemicals instead. Within another 30 seconds, carcinogenic chemical number 12001 will make its way into something.
- freeflight 4y agoAfaik there is already a fundamental difference to how the US and EU approach that. In the EU new products need to follow the precautionary principle [0] and proof that their product is safe for consumers, before being allowed to be sold on the market. While in the US the product is assumed to be benign until evidence to the contrary surfaces, which is then usually solved trough civil law suits suing the company using something that is discovered to be nasty. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- zokier 4y agoIts almost as if they thought already about that: > To make it harder for chemical firms to avoid having individual chemicals banned, the European Chemicals Agency prefers dealing with chemicals in groups. > Otherwise, firms can use a tactic called "regrettable substitution -- altering the composition of chemicals to create sister chemicals that could be just as dangerous, The Guardian reported. > The toxins will be part of a regularly reviewed rolling list, according to the European Commission.
- geysersam 4y agoFor some known risky categories of chemicals - definitely! It should not be possible to tweak chemicals known to be dangerous just slightly and expose the public to them until enough evidence accumulates that surprise this version was also poisonous in exactly the same way.
- sva_ 4y agoI think these kind of analogue laws are dangerous because it's difficult to define what an analogue of some chemical is, and if there are set rules, then you again give out a playbook of how to avoid them.
- umvi 4y agoToxic, yes, but also probably highly useful too otherwise there would be no reason to use them in the first place. For example: > Chemical category groups like PVC plastics, flame retardants and bisphenols are included in the EU's plan. So... building houses are going to get a lot more expensive? (I'm assuming this means you now have to use copper piping for new houses instead of PVC since it would be banned).
- rockinghigh 4y agoPVC is only used for the sewage drain as far as I know. That's a small cost.
- ben_w 4y agoAlso window frames, and some flooring.
- throwawayboise 4y agoPVC is used for most incoming supply lines and mains, also many houses use CPVC pipes for hot and cold water in the house. (CPVC is Chlorinated PVC pipe, it can withstand hot water, it's a light yellow/orange in color compared to PVC which is white, and it's sized like copper pipe wheras PVC is sized like iron pipe.
- coryrc 4y agoIn my region PVC is not used for potable water; usually LDPE or HDPE for water line from street to house, PEX or copper inside.
- destitude 4y agoPVC is used everywhere in the USA. You can probably name almost any common household item in the USA and there is a PVC version of it if not the dominant form. It's because there are very large PVC manufacturers in the USA which is why it is pushed so hard and people kept in dark about the dangers. You've surely heard of "vinyl" but maybe didn't realize that was PVC.
- jihadjihad 4y agoDoesn't toxicity depend on dose? Have studies been done on maximum allowable dose of these chemicals?
- bamboozled 4y agoBut if it accumulates in the environment ?
- ben_w 4y agoOxygen meets this definition, and is toxic to humans in high enough concentrations.
- bamboozled 4y agoIt's a different argument though, it's an organic material to start with which existent long before the industrial revolution. It's also 100% required for our survival. Fire retardants which are known to cause cancer or birth defects, I'm not so sure. Then there's the fact that Oxyten is literally everwhere, do you want those retardants to be everywhere too, in your lungs?
- ben_w 4y ago> Fire retardants which are known to cause cancer or birth defects, I'm not so sure. On the other hand, they’re very good at stopping you from burning to death. Even the ones we have banned (or will ban) and replaced with others are very good at preventing a really really bad way to die. Also, quite a lot of toxic things are also organic, regardless of if you’re using that word in the chemical sense or the “it’s natural” sense.
- zionic 4y agoThey’re not good though. Hold an open flame or shorting electrical wire to a coated surface and it will burn just the same. Flame retardants only really give you a slight edge vs a burning cigarette on a couch. We coated our couches, clothes, carpets etc in cancerous chemicals to save a few smokers that passed out drunk
- frontman1988 4y agoIs there any place left on Earth completely untouched by industrial chemicals? Even in remotest countries you have fertilizers, pesticides, mining activity related chemicals, road building chemicals etc.
- markdown 4y ago99% of Americans have PFAS in their blood made by Dupont and other companies. This is because the US allows corporations to invent new chemicals and sell them to the public without any regulation. People all over the world now have PFAS in their bodies as a result of the capitalist rot in the US. We didn't ask for this, and yet we're all subjected to it. PFAS are forever chemicals that will last centuries. https://massivesci.com/articles/dark-waters-pfas-focus-features-mark-ruffalo-anne-hathaway-sloan/ https://massivesci.com/articles/dark-waters-pfas-focus-featu...
- yesenadam 4y agoI recommend everyone, downvoters especially, see the movie Dark Waters, then return wiser and upvote. It will make you angry, and depressed, that such practises are allowed to happen, and are so hard to stop after being exposed. TLDW: DuPont made a secret toxic waste dump that poisoned farms, created birth defects etc. The movie's about a lawyer fighting DuPont in court for 20 years over that.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoPFAS was invented by the military during WW2, it was a war secret not allowed to go into chemistry books for quite a number of years.
- markdown 4y agoIt's a massive category of chemicals.
- tmaly 4y agoI am curious how many of these 12,000 are readily available in US food products
- lesgobrandon 4y ago
- theodric 4y agoNot looking forward to suddenly being unable to buy some basic cleaning or lubricant product because the EU nannies decided I'm no longer adult enough to handle it
- yes_man 4y agoIt’s more like, you can put anything you want into your system as far as European Chemicals Agency is concerned, but you can’t sell products that clearly seem to cause hormonal effects or be cancerous
- president 4y agoNoble move but I hope this doesn't cause unintended consequences. If costs go up because alternative methods are more expensive, people will end up importing from countries that don't have these bans. Are these economic side-effects ever considered in these decisions?