4 ms·

> that we allowed companies to just make Isn’t this the default in America (and more countries, sure)? I prefer the opposite (European) stance the companies h

> that we allowed companies to just make Isn’t this the default in America (and more countries, sure)? I prefer the opposite (European) stance the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. (Or be strongarmed by the US or Fall to bribery like everywhere else… but at least there is trying)

gottorf 3y ago
> the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. There must be a reasonable balance struck somewhere. One cannot prove a negative, after all, and if anything new must be proven beyond doubt that it has no short, medium, or long-term effects on human health, you are not going to have anything new, period. Acetaminophen, for example, has been in use for a century and a half, yet we still don't know how it really works[0]. If we don't know how it works, how are we to know that it won't harm us in some insidious way? [0]: https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetaminophen-work https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetami...
- anonyfox 3y ago
  The counter point is that the vast majority of produced stuff is absolute useless garbage no one actually needs, or a gazillion of ripoffs from each other. Consumerism is a plague not only for people but also for the environment. I think we can see a „dry-run“ of some product launch, point out dangerous flaws, and repeat until something actually useful is proposed that is not some profit-extraction tradeoff that makes something else worse. This is rather extreme by intention, the truth probably is somewhere between, but I think most people can’t see how a more regulated system can actually thrive much better than putting people into poverty death loops and destroying the planet in the process.
- callalex 3y ago
  It sounds to me like the reasonable balance has already been struck in the EU, as Acetaminophen is not banned in the EU.

gottorf 3y ago

> the companies have to prove beyond doubt the harmlessness. There must be a reasonable balance struck somewhere. One cannot prove a negative, after all, and if anything new must be proven beyond doubt that it has no short, medium, or long-term effects on human health, you are not going to have anything new, period. Acetaminophen, for example, has been in use for a century and a half, yet we still don't know how it really works[0]. If we don't know how it works, how are we to know that it won't harm us in some insidious way? [0]: https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetaminophen-work https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/how-does-acetami...

anonyfox 3y ago
The counter point is that the vast majority of produced stuff is absolute useless garbage no one actually needs, or a gazillion of ripoffs from each other. Consumerism is a plague not only for people but also for the environment. I think we can see a „dry-run“ of some product launch, point out dangerous flaws, and repeat until something actually useful is proposed that is not some profit-extraction tradeoff that makes something else worse. This is rather extreme by intention, the truth probably is somewhere between, but I think most people can’t see how a more regulated system can actually thrive much better than putting people into poverty death loops and destroying the planet in the process.
callalex 3y ago
It sounds to me like the reasonable balance has already been struck in the EU, as Acetaminophen is not banned in the EU.