5 ms·

For some known risky categories of chemicals - definitely! It should not be possible to tweak chemicals known to be dangerous just slightly and expose the publi

For 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_ 5y ago
I 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.
- na85 5y ago
  Perhaps the government should convene a standing committee of chemists to make determinations like that.
  - markdown 5y ago
    Won't be long before all those chemists are from Bayer and Dupont and 3M.
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      Governments need to make the top regulator jobs more like top CEO positions. Get access to government retreats meant for diplomats, nice pay and create prestige. But along with that comes a complete ban of gainful employment from industry after you get the top job with jail as punishment. If you aren’t fired for colluding with industry then get a lifelong pension. Expensive sure, but less expensive than letting industry control the regulators.
      - strawhatguy 5y ago
        The reason why a regulator hires from industry in the first place is because that’s where the knowledgeable people are. The alternative you’re suggesting ( if it even works at eliminating the collusion in the first place), is to staff such with lower qualified people, which has its own pitfalls. No you can’t take politics out of a political institution, so it’s actually questionable how good this will end up being, and will it place the EU further behind other parts of the globe, especially if an alternative chemical can not be found for some necessary process.
        Swenrekcah 5y ago
        It's fine to have people flow between industry and regulation at the lower levels. The only barrier that is needed is from the top of regulation -> industry. Top of industry -> top of regulation is fine as long as one divests all relevant assets simultaneously.
- geysersam 5y ago
  Allowing poison in children's toys for the sake of profit is also "dangerous". I don't think the playbook argument holds water. It's arguably easier to avoid the rules if there are none to begin with.
coryrc 5y ago
Bisphenol S, mark my words
- hkwerf 5y ago
  And here I thought thermal receipts are safe now. Thanks for popping that bubble.

sva_ 5y ago

I 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.

na85 5y ago
Perhaps the government should convene a standing committee of chemists to make determinations like that.
- markdown 5y ago
  Won't be long before all those chemists are from Bayer and Dupont and 3M.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Governments need to make the top regulator jobs more like top CEO positions. Get access to government retreats meant for diplomats, nice pay and create prestige. But along with that comes a complete ban of gainful employment from industry after you get the top job with jail as punishment. If you aren’t fired for colluding with industry then get a lifelong pension. Expensive sure, but less expensive than letting industry control the regulators.
    - strawhatguy 5y ago
      The reason why a regulator hires from industry in the first place is because that’s where the knowledgeable people are. The alternative you’re suggesting ( if it even works at eliminating the collusion in the first place), is to staff such with lower qualified people, which has its own pitfalls. No you can’t take politics out of a political institution, so it’s actually questionable how good this will end up being, and will it place the EU further behind other parts of the globe, especially if an alternative chemical can not be found for some necessary process.
      - Swenrekcah 5y ago
        It's fine to have people flow between industry and regulation at the lower levels. The only barrier that is needed is from the top of regulation -> industry. Top of industry -> top of regulation is fine as long as one divests all relevant assets simultaneously.
geysersam 5y ago
Allowing poison in children's toys for the sake of profit is also "dangerous". I don't think the playbook argument holds water. It's arguably easier to avoid the rules if there are none to begin with.

coryrc 5y ago

Bisphenol S, mark my words

hkwerf 5y ago
And here I thought thermal receipts are safe now. Thanks for popping that bubble.