4 ms·
Yes, but how rigorous? Some chemicals are only toxic when combined with others. Some may require years or even decades of exposure to show signs of toxicity. So
by nickserv 3y ago
Yes, but how rigorous? Some chemicals are only toxic when combined with others. Some may require years or even decades of exposure to show signs of toxicity. Some only affect a percentage of the population. Etc etc.
The reality is that it's basically impossible to prove absolute safety.
Perhaps it's better to assume there is always a risk, and to only a chemical if there is a really important reason for it, even if tested. So something like non-stick pans would be out.
- oezi 3y agoThey should use a similar process as with pharmaceuticals: Phase 1, 2 trials to show safety and then a rigorous post-market surveillance. If this means new chemicals cost 1bn USD to bring to market then yes, this is a reflection of the true cost of these products. We can't continue letting greedy corporations poison us just for the benefit of their shareholders.
- colordrops 3y agoIt may not need to be as rigorous as a vaccine or medicine, but that doesn't mean there should be no process. All that is needed for humans to survive and thrive robustly is already available. There is no excuse for new chemical to be introduced for the benefit of profit. It should be on the seller to prove the chemical is relatively safe rather than the public to prove it is not safe. It would be great if non-stick pans were never invented.