Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy, that feels like a strawman. Most of the toxic products we use have very strict usage guides and/or regulations att

Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy, that feels like a strawman. Most of the toxic products we use have very strict usage guides and/or regulations attached. There's two issues, and you're glossing over both: 1) purposefully hiding the negative effects of your products 2) the lack of meaningful accountability for those doing 1 Not only do you need to know a product's toxicity, but also the expected dose, and exposure over time Exactly. And it seems that people knew about those, yet chose to hide these things from the public. The question is whether they had reason to believe it was related to exposure to C-8 No, the question is whether they had a moral obligation to research that and publicize it, given what else they knew and didn't tell. If they had shared the rest of their knowledge, maybe they could be absolved from this particular point if nobody else in society thought it worthwhile to look into. But given that they didn't, this obligation falls only on them.