3 ms·

This issue I sense with respect to whether there are truly any safe exposure amounts is that the moment you say anything greater than zero, you give wiggle room

This issue I sense with respect to whether there are truly any safe exposure amounts is that the moment you say anything greater than zero, you give wiggle room for companies (hell, even governments and regulatory bodies in general) to fuck around and pretend their negligence in allowing an-after-the-fact higher amount product was due to some arbitrary reason that ignores the fact that there really shouldn't be any of the thing at all for practical purposes and that, consequently, this thing really can't exist or be allowed to continue being marketed. Folks interested in the language that this evokes have zero issue doing this with drugs, why so serious (in terms of incompetency) with respect to this?

Aurornis 3y ago
> This issue I sense with respect to whether there are truly any safe exposure amounts is that the moment you say anything greater than zero, If you set all of the limits at zero, we wouldn't be eating anything. You wouldn't even be eating vegetables from your own garden.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is when you have any tolerance at all for hard no things like lead, it only extends the Overton window of regulation so far, to the point where you're allowing for a defense when it needs to be an absolute liabillity. Lead intoxication (both acutely and chronic) is an absolutely castastrophic public health problem. It has to be absolutley unacceptable and legally made to essentially be indefensible where it can be objectively proven a chain of events flows from commercial activity of defendant company to the inclusion (or failure to remove it from) the product and seperately for any harm that results to customers. If no company can legit handle the liabillity aspect then it needs to be like nuclear weapons and "handled by the government" even though that opens its own range of potential issues. That is the least-worst arbiter and threat actor who handle's other such things.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Paying for damages sounds like that's also allowing nonzero amounts. And I don't know what you mean by the government handling it. Surely you don't mean the government handles all food production, but I can't figure out how else to interpret that. Lying about tolerances in service of an overton fight is not something that sounds very good to me.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      > lying about tolerances Wat?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        You're saying we can't tolerate nonzero amounts. As pointed out, actually doing that would mean no food. Since you brought up the overton window, it sounds like you want to claim we don't tolerate any at all, while actually tolerating it so people can eat. That would be lying.
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Look, if you're correct that there is and will inevitably be minute traces of lead throughout the food supply and you're implying that this is not a reality that can be changed because its basically just how it is on a basically molecular model, than yeah we can't necessarily make it full-blown absolute liabillity. That sure as hell doesn't mean that concessions aren't made on the part of operating companiea to ensure their windfall in removing the biggest threat to their business upon discovery of their future criminal wrong-doing does not being part of their operations. Like how that company in China added some bullshit additive to baby formula that ended killing and maiming a bunch of Chinese babies. The absolute balls firstly, but second, they had lots of splaining to do as if thry were in AbsoluteLiabillityNation, which China's legal system certainly seems to be. Heads rolled off to prison disgraced and disrobed economically speaking and I'll bet they don't have a similar crisis for a good long time but obviously the odds of fraud there, like anywhere else, tend towards non-zero...

Aurornis 3y ago

> This issue I sense with respect to whether there are truly any safe exposure amounts is that the moment you say anything greater than zero, If you set all of the limits at zero, we wouldn't be eating anything. You wouldn't even be eating vegetables from your own garden.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
The point I'm trying to make is when you have any tolerance at all for hard no things like lead, it only extends the Overton window of regulation so far, to the point where you're allowing for a defense when it needs to be an absolute liabillity. Lead intoxication (both acutely and chronic) is an absolutely castastrophic public health problem. It has to be absolutley unacceptable and legally made to essentially be indefensible where it can be objectively proven a chain of events flows from commercial activity of defendant company to the inclusion (or failure to remove it from) the product and seperately for any harm that results to customers. If no company can legit handle the liabillity aspect then it needs to be like nuclear weapons and "handled by the government" even though that opens its own range of potential issues. That is the least-worst arbiter and threat actor who handle's other such things.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Paying for damages sounds like that's also allowing nonzero amounts. And I don't know what you mean by the government handling it. Surely you don't mean the government handles all food production, but I can't figure out how else to interpret that. Lying about tolerances in service of an overton fight is not something that sounds very good to me.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    > lying about tolerances Wat?
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      You're saying we can't tolerate nonzero amounts. As pointed out, actually doing that would mean no food. Since you brought up the overton window, it sounds like you want to claim we don't tolerate any at all, while actually tolerating it so people can eat. That would be lying.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Look, if you're correct that there is and will inevitably be minute traces of lead throughout the food supply and you're implying that this is not a reality that can be changed because its basically just how it is on a basically molecular model, than yeah we can't necessarily make it full-blown absolute liabillity. That sure as hell doesn't mean that concessions aren't made on the part of operating companiea to ensure their windfall in removing the biggest threat to their business upon discovery of their future criminal wrong-doing does not being part of their operations. Like how that company in China added some bullshit additive to baby formula that ended killing and maiming a bunch of Chinese babies. The absolute balls firstly, but second, they had lots of splaining to do as if thry were in AbsoluteLiabillityNation, which China's legal system certainly seems to be. Heads rolled off to prison disgraced and disrobed economically speaking and I'll bet they don't have a similar crisis for a good long time but obviously the odds of fraud there, like anywhere else, tend towards non-zero...