4 ms·
To be fair to them, "It's a flame retardant" is a very common argument against the use of BVA. It's a bad argument that has the same level of merit (none) as "I
by StableAlkyne 3y ago
To be fair to them, "It's a flame retardant" is a very common argument against the use of BVA. It's a bad argument that has the same level of merit (none) as "It's a chemical," but it's certainly a common argument.
BVA has other health and safety concerns that do justify the ban... But it doesn't have the same shock-value as telling someone they're drinking flame retardant. I suspect that's why most of the online discussion misses the health effects and focuses on the more shocking claim.
- actionfromafar 3y agoI think the shock value comes from how much we have heard over the decades about how harmful the smoke from flame retardants is, and how many types of flame retardant have been prohibited. So in a vacuum, I agree it's a stupid argument but in conjunction with "flame retardants are dangerous" it's not so stupid.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- groby_b 3y agoSure, but (now flagged) OP was specifically criticizing the FDA. Which very much didn't make this argument. And, fwiw, I think it's important we don't conflate criticism of institutions with criticism of statements random people on the Internet made. (We can and should criticize either, but separately - the FDA being wrong has a much different meaning than somebody on the Internet being wrong)