I don't think arguing for some safety standards proportional to the life of the thing being used is arguing for stopping all invention. I think the most charit

I don't think arguing for some safety standards proportional to the life of the thing being used is arguing for stopping all invention. I think the most charitable reading of your critique is that you are using the Slippery Slope Fallacy to argue that any restrictions on invention means no invention at all. I do agree it's impossible to prove a negative which is why I qualified it, but you can demonstrate a few negative results like "Doesn't substantially increase the risk of Cancer X" for various types of cancer. Etc. I'd leave it to the experts to choose which risks should be tested for and shown to not be an issue. On the other hand you're arguing for a very unfair world where people are unfairly exposed to hugely damaging chemicals and don't get any remediation for those damages because we don't ensure the profits from those chemicals actually offset their long term consequences and we don't require companies taking on such risks to adequately fund future lawsuits. I agree that's kind of been the norm in US-style capitalism, but I think there is a strong case it shouldn't be.