IIRC many human made chemicals interrupt the reproduction of critters. esp Amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish. That's bad, right? Like compounds which act like h

IIRC many human made chemicals interrupt the reproduction of critters. esp Amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish. That's bad, right? Like compounds which act like hormones (estrogens?) and mess up all sorts of stuff and causes tumors and so forth. Further IIRC, studies of these harmful chemicals more often than not indicate they also adversely impact primates. Enough evidence to merit further study. But we don't. Why not? Humans somehow managed without forever chemicals and face cream with micro beads for millennias. Why not hit "pause" on any questionables? Let the science catch up, to better inform policy. What's few more years delay, in the grand scheme of things? As a big fan of the precautionary principle, I'm always mystified by denial of potential risks. esp When those profiteering from the risks won't face any consequences. If we were discussing finance, we'd blather about "principle agents" and "uncollaterized debt", and the game theory would be obvious and uncontroversial. To honest players.