6 ms·

My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's s

My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". You can still progress technologically without being reckless.

pkaye 3y ago
> My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. Which countries do it that way?
- pimlottc 3y ago
  The EU uses a whitelist approach for food additives, vs the US's blacklist approach: > Europe has chosen a precautionary approach in regulating, while the U.S. governing bodies tend to be more reactive. In other words, in the United States, food additives are innocent until proven guilty, while in Europe, only those additives proven not to be harmful are approved for use. http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer-look-at-food-standards/ http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer...
CodeWriter23 3y ago
> in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe Until you get into pharmaceuticals, then the world standard is a step beyond "prove it's harmful" to "no evidence of harm is proof that it is safe".
- Kuinox 3y ago
  You have to prove that the benefits is worth the potential harm. Vaccines are known to be harmful to very few persons, yet we vaccine because the benefits outweigh the very small potential of harm.
  - CodeWriter23 3y ago
    No, especially with vaccines in the US (and some other places) science doesn’t have to meet that burden because they are indemnified for product liability by the government by law.
    - Kuinox 3y ago
      Good thing I'm not in the US then.
      - CodeWriter23 3y ago
        Chances are then you live in a country that says “the FDA is good enough for us”. India not being one such country.
      - nomoreusernames 3y ago
        [dead]
varelse 3y ago
There are a ton of contaminants in our drinking water that the EPA recommends you remove and we know they are harmful but they are not mandated to do so. Get yourself a water filter because they're not going to filter it for you.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  Do you have a list?
  - reissbaker 3y ago
    If you live in California you likely have an enormous amount of chloroform in your water (I tested my water, was horrified, and bought a whole-house water filter; apparently this is just generally true in the Bay Area, and I suspect SoCal as well since we pipe our water down there).
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      Yeah, I had a bit of a brain fart, the E in EPA made me think Europe, despite me actually knowing what it stands for. I luckily have nothing like that in my water.
hanniabu 3y ago
> We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". Don't be silly, US has "prove it's profitable"

pkaye 3y ago

> My understanding is that in a lot of countries, the perspective is backwards from what we have in the US. Which countries do it that way?

pimlottc 3y ago
The EU uses a whitelist approach for food additives, vs the US's blacklist approach: > Europe has chosen a precautionary approach in regulating, while the U.S. governing bodies tend to be more reactive. In other words, in the United States, food additives are innocent until proven guilty, while in Europe, only those additives proven not to be harmful are approved for use. http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer-look-at-food-standards/ http://www.germinalorganic.com/2018/02/eu-versus-us-a-closer...

CodeWriter23 3y ago

> in the US. We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe Until you get into pharmaceuticals, then the world standard is a step beyond "prove it's harmful" to "no evidence of harm is proof that it is safe".

Kuinox 3y ago
You have to prove that the benefits is worth the potential harm. Vaccines are known to be harmful to very few persons, yet we vaccine because the benefits outweigh the very small potential of harm.
- CodeWriter23 3y ago
  No, especially with vaccines in the US (and some other places) science doesn’t have to meet that burden because they are indemnified for product liability by the government by law.
  - Kuinox 3y ago
    Good thing I'm not in the US then.
    - CodeWriter23 3y ago
      Chances are then you live in a country that says “the FDA is good enough for us”. India not being one such country.
    - nomoreusernames 3y ago
      [dead]

varelse 3y ago

There are a ton of contaminants in our drinking water that the EPA recommends you remove and we know they are harmful but they are not mandated to do so. Get yourself a water filter because they're not going to filter it for you.

Semaphor 3y ago
Do you have a list?
- reissbaker 3y ago
  If you live in California you likely have an enormous amount of chloroform in your water (I tested my water, was horrified, and bought a whole-house water filter; apparently this is just generally true in the Bay Area, and I suspect SoCal as well since we pipe our water down there).
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    Yeah, I had a bit of a brain fart, the E in EPA made me think Europe, despite me actually knowing what it stands for. I luckily have nothing like that in my water.

hanniabu 3y ago

> We have, "prove it's harmful." They have "prove it's safe". Don't be silly, US has "prove it's profitable"