5 ms·

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure

by joshe 3y ago

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

turnerdhooch 3y ago
Regulatory capture.
4ec0755f5522 3y ago
Hard disagree; companies should be responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of whether it's "legal". This is "loophole thinking" and it only benefits bad actors.
- liquidise 3y ago
  Care you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious about how this plays out in in practice. From the perspective of a driver, this fits: i am held responsible for harm i cause even if i was otherwise driving lawfully. But should my car maker be held responsible for the harm their car caused under lawful use?
- fluoridation 3y ago
  Doing something that's not illegal is not a loophole. A loophole involves doing something that would otherwise be illegal in a manner that makes it ambiguously not illegal, often due to a poorly-made law.
  - graeme 3y ago
    A lawsuit is about harm. If it's a civil lawsuit, you can absolutely be sued for doing things which you know to be harmful to others, even if they aren't crimes. That's what a tort is. The purpose of such private lawsuits it to give people a legal mechanism for redress that doesn't involve physically attacking each other or trying to legislate everything.
    - cpncrunch 3y ago
      >know to be harmful to others This is the key fact. I had a look at the evidence, and I'm not seeing any harm myself. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... Taking an example of developmental problems, there is this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/ but it doesn't seem to have been replicated, at least in mice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345697/
      - magicalist 3y ago
        What is your goal with this comment? > I had a look at the evidence The evidence isn't difficult to search for, and your 30 second "look" at two sources from the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly amount to a meta analysis.
        cpncrunch 3y ago
        If you can post that meta-analysis that would be helpful, thanks. My goal is to find the evidence. It seems you have it, so it would be useful if you could post it. Generally if there is a meta-analysis or robust evidence it will be in the wikipedia article. If not, I'd love for you to add it (or I can). Evidence shouldn't be hard to find...
        smugma 3y ago
        Why should evidence not be hard to find? It’s why we have detectives (to find evidence of crimes) and why lawsuits have long discovery processes (again, to find evidence).
        cpncrunch 3y ago
        We are talking about published scientific studies here, which are all listed on pubmed. Clearly there isnt any robust evidence, as nobody has posted a link to anything.
- cush 3y ago
  How do we know that any new product doesn't have long term health effects? As science advances, the ability to precisely measure health effects advances as well. In most cases, we simply don't know until it's too late. There's a realistic balance between caution and innovation. That said, if 3M knew about and covered up known health effects, then take em for all they're worth.
specialist 3y ago
Does "Don't (knowingly) poison the whole earth and all its inhabitants" need to be a written rule?
- kubota 3y ago
  Yes.
fluoridation 3y ago
Presumably these are civil suits, not criminal cases. Whether the chemicals in question were banned or not is irrelevant.
Miraste 3y ago
If the scientists who invented and tested it worked at 3M, how would the government know it was harmful before they distributed it?
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  PFAS was military tech before it came to 3M.
- BatFastard 3y ago
  The government did not know, but 3M knew. They made a choice not to burn it in order to save money.
greenie_beans 3y ago
don't you think lobbying might play a factor in whether or not they're banned yet?
arcticfox 3y ago
If the other commenter saying "The problem is 3M scientists have know toxicity to human and have withheld the information to the public and regulators" is accurate, your point is invalid. How could we ban a product that we were misled on.
- biofunsf 3y ago
  I totally agree if the toxicity is known. But the fact that these chemicals aren't banned completely, must mean that this isn't yet widely excepted? Toxicity is a wide spectrum so the truth could be somewhere in between. Maybe teflon coated products don't have enough to be toxic, but dumping the chemicals wholesale into the water supply is enough to be toxic. And 3M could have concealed this high-dosage toxicity from regulators. (I'm trying to reconcile "3M scientists have know toxicity to humans" and the fact that these chemicals aren't banned)
stonogo 3y ago
Scientists, regulators, and legislatures already decided the rules. They're not being sued for "selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet." That summary is inaccurate. They're being sued for selling products they knew to be toxic, without disclosing that information, which is already against the law.

by joshe 3y ago

turnerdhooch 3y ago

Regulatory capture.

4ec0755f5522 3y ago

Hard disagree; companies should be responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of whether it's "legal". This is "loophole thinking" and it only benefits bad actors.

liquidise 3y ago
Care you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious about how this plays out in in practice. From the perspective of a driver, this fits: i am held responsible for harm i cause even if i was otherwise driving lawfully. But should my car maker be held responsible for the harm their car caused under lawful use?
fluoridation 3y ago
Doing something that's not illegal is not a loophole. A loophole involves doing something that would otherwise be illegal in a manner that makes it ambiguously not illegal, often due to a poorly-made law.
- graeme 3y ago
  A lawsuit is about harm. If it's a civil lawsuit, you can absolutely be sued for doing things which you know to be harmful to others, even if they aren't crimes. That's what a tort is. The purpose of such private lawsuits it to give people a legal mechanism for redress that doesn't involve physically attacking each other or trying to legislate everything.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    >know to be harmful to others This is the key fact. I had a look at the evidence, and I'm not seeing any harm myself. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... Taking an example of developmental problems, there is this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/ but it doesn't seem to have been replicated, at least in mice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345697/
    - magicalist 3y ago
      What is your goal with this comment? > I had a look at the evidence The evidence isn't difficult to search for, and your 30 second "look" at two sources from the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly amount to a meta analysis.
      - cpncrunch 3y ago
        If you can post that meta-analysis that would be helpful, thanks. My goal is to find the evidence. It seems you have it, so it would be useful if you could post it. Generally if there is a meta-analysis or robust evidence it will be in the wikipedia article. If not, I'd love for you to add it (or I can). Evidence shouldn't be hard to find...
        smugma 3y ago
        Why should evidence not be hard to find? It’s why we have detectives (to find evidence of crimes) and why lawsuits have long discovery processes (again, to find evidence).
        cpncrunch 3y ago
        We are talking about published scientific studies here, which are all listed on pubmed. Clearly there isnt any robust evidence, as nobody has posted a link to anything.
cush 3y ago
How do we know that any new product doesn't have long term health effects? As science advances, the ability to precisely measure health effects advances as well. In most cases, we simply don't know until it's too late. There's a realistic balance between caution and innovation. That said, if 3M knew about and covered up known health effects, then take em for all they're worth.

specialist 3y ago

Does "Don't (knowingly) poison the whole earth and all its inhabitants" need to be a written rule?

kubota 3y ago
Yes.

fluoridation 3y ago

Presumably these are civil suits, not criminal cases. Whether the chemicals in question were banned or not is irrelevant.

Miraste 3y ago

If the scientists who invented and tested it worked at 3M, how would the government know it was harmful before they distributed it?

mensetmanusman 3y ago
PFAS was military tech before it came to 3M.
BatFastard 3y ago
The government did not know, but 3M knew. They made a choice not to burn it in order to save money.

greenie_beans 3y ago

don't you think lobbying might play a factor in whether or not they're banned yet?

arcticfox 3y ago

If the other commenter saying "The problem is 3M scientists have know toxicity to human and have withheld the information to the public and regulators" is accurate, your point is invalid. How could we ban a product that we were misled on.

biofunsf 3y ago
I totally agree if the toxicity is known. But the fact that these chemicals aren't banned completely, must mean that this isn't yet widely excepted? Toxicity is a wide spectrum so the truth could be somewhere in between. Maybe teflon coated products don't have enough to be toxic, but dumping the chemicals wholesale into the water supply is enough to be toxic. And 3M could have concealed this high-dosage toxicity from regulators. (I'm trying to reconcile "3M scientists have know toxicity to humans" and the fact that these chemicals aren't banned)

stonogo 3y ago

Scientists, regulators, and legislatures already decided the rules. They're not being sued for "selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet." That summary is inaccurate. They're being sued for selling products they knew to be toxic, without disclosing that information, which is already against the law.