7 ms·

On a similar note, we had the big push towards "BPA-free" plastic a few years ago. Manufacturers just replaced the BPA with related bisphenols like BPF which i

On a similar note, we had the big push towards "BPA-free" plastic a few years ago. Manufacturers just replaced the BPA with related bisphenols like BPF which is probably just as bad as BPA and BPS which is probably worse than BPA.

tmaly 1y ago
My neighbor, a retired chemist, said it is just a game of whack a mole.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  This is what happens when you allow companies to dump unvetted, novel, synthetic chemicals into products and packaging. Especially when the audience for those products has substantially less information than the companies who produce them en masse.
  - euroderf 1y ago
    Expect no improvement in the short-to-medium term.
    - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
      I would also add long term. Often one dangerous substance is replaced with another.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        And it doesn't help that our only practical lever for improvement was recently eliminated by SCOTUS. Under the Chevron Doctrine, Congress could pass a law that broadly bans all chemicals like these and then the agencies could react to new studies like this and push out new rules as we learn more and as companies attempt workarounds. But with that tool gone, there's basically no chance of this ever getting fixed. Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. Good luck with that!
        dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
        >Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. This speak of stupidity/incompetence or most likely corruption, the average ignorant populace is generally to blame, their priorities are never a healthy environment ( unless it's for virtue signalling). There is no hope.
        somenameforme 1y ago
        What you're describing would still be 100% possible. Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate. For a very high profile recent example when the CDC tried to expand the expired COVID related eviction moratorium, they did so under a section of the public health services act that granted them the power to carry out measures "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases." Claiming that banning evictions falls under there is a rather 'creative' interpretation, but it was initially allowed due to Chevon deference where judges were obligated to defer to the interpretations of regulatory agencies. If an agency is tasked with the 'prohibition of plastics, or related compounds, deemed reasonably likely to be harmful' then they would be fully capable of doing just that. With Chevron Deference they probably could then expand that mandate to then do something like claim regulatory authority over beaches owing to prohibited plastic waste washing ashore, but without it that would probably require a new law since that's clearly an unintended expansion of power.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate Not true. And I mean literally definitionally not true. Chevron deference only applies (definitionally) when the agency's interpretation is reasonable. With Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenged a rule, the court applied a two part test: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. Is the agency's interpretation of the legislation reasonable? If yes: the agency's rule wins. If no: the rule is bad. Without Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenges a rule, it works this way: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. What's the court's opinion on the matter? That's the rule for this particular instance of the problem, with effectively zero binding authority on other instances of similar problems (e.g. a case on Compound x1 will have no bearing, a priori, on a virtually identical Compound x1.1)
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    It is also what happens when you pass dumb laws with no consideration of second order effects. If you want to ban bad plastics, mandate a safe alternative.
    - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
      > If you want to ban bad plastics, mandate a safe alternative. Not always possible, is it? I mean there must have been a time before plastics?
      - hypercube33 1y ago
        For most of this stuff, we had something - glass. Companies lobbied against it because they had to build in recycling costs, and I assume its more expensive to ship.
        creaturemachine 1y ago
        The shipping issue is entirely new. There are generations alive today that survived without fresh fruit imported from across the globe.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      And pre-emptively ban new materials and outlaw attempts to innovate?
      - NewJazz 1y ago
        You can still synthesize new chemicals, but you have to run studies and receive informed consent from subjects before dumping it in the wider world.
      - WillPostForFood 1y ago
        Yes, but I'd reframe as preemptively get permission before use. Maybe an automatic approval with appropriate testing. Allow innovation, but add some layer of accountability.
  - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
    >audience for those products has substantially less information I assure you, they will not do anything with the information even if they had it. Convenience trumps every other consideration including safety.
    - convolvatron 1y ago
      I resent this framing as being entirely about short-sighted consumers valuing convenience. surely it has quite a bit to do with cost as well, both for the producer to increase their margins and also the end consumer. alot of it has to do with choice. the market presents very few non-plastic options in cases where plastic will do fine. so yes, convenience in the 'i hate to buy this plastic thing, but I dont have a week to find someone in estonia that still makes quality goods by hand and then wait for it to be shipped to me' sense
      - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
        >I resent this framing as being entirely about short-sighted consumers valuing convenience. Your resentment is not valid. The switch to plastics did not happen overnight. There used a lot more choices in the past. Common people increasingly chose plastics over a period of time. ( or rather were lazy) Your resentment can be rephrased as - "I cannot come to terms with the fact that common people really are that stupid". Freedoms in various forms are generally not taken away overnight. As they say "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
        ziddoap 1y ago
        Their resentment is completely valid.
        kylebenzle 1y ago
        Did you read comment above because yours does not not address the response at all (and you are wrong in that context). Again, dude above is saying clearly that the issue is man man, we did this, it's not a natural disaster, so there is no one to blame but ourselves, pretending it was an outside power that did this to you is not valid.
  - iknowstuff 1y ago
    You’d be living in the stone age if it wasn’t for that so maybe calm down.
    - NewJazz 1y ago
      That isn't even close to true.
- gosub100 1y ago
  > a mole That's a very good pun even if it wasn't intentional.
- motbus3 1y ago
  A friend of mine who works in the field says that we make some effort to not remember that glass was a thing for a reason after the epidemy of the plastic from the 60s and 70s
- 486sx33 1y ago
  True! You can also see that happening in real time with the DEA and the “schedule” of banned substances.
KurSix 1y ago
It's frustrating how often regulation or public pressure leads to these half-measures instead of actual safer alternatives

tmaly 1y ago

My neighbor, a retired chemist, said it is just a game of whack a mole.

NewJazz 1y ago
This is what happens when you allow companies to dump unvetted, novel, synthetic chemicals into products and packaging. Especially when the audience for those products has substantially less information than the companies who produce them en masse.
- euroderf 1y ago
  Expect no improvement in the short-to-medium term.
  - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
    I would also add long term. Often one dangerous substance is replaced with another.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      And it doesn't help that our only practical lever for improvement was recently eliminated by SCOTUS. Under the Chevron Doctrine, Congress could pass a law that broadly bans all chemicals like these and then the agencies could react to new studies like this and push out new rules as we learn more and as companies attempt workarounds. But with that tool gone, there's basically no chance of this ever getting fixed. Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. Good luck with that!
      - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
        >Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. This speak of stupidity/incompetence or most likely corruption, the average ignorant populace is generally to blame, their priorities are never a healthy environment ( unless it's for virtue signalling). There is no hope.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        What you're describing would still be 100% possible. Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate. For a very high profile recent example when the CDC tried to expand the expired COVID related eviction moratorium, they did so under a section of the public health services act that granted them the power to carry out measures "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases." Claiming that banning evictions falls under there is a rather 'creative' interpretation, but it was initially allowed due to Chevon deference where judges were obligated to defer to the interpretations of regulatory agencies. If an agency is tasked with the 'prohibition of plastics, or related compounds, deemed reasonably likely to be harmful' then they would be fully capable of doing just that. With Chevron Deference they probably could then expand that mandate to then do something like claim regulatory authority over beaches owing to prohibited plastic waste washing ashore, but without it that would probably require a new law since that's clearly an unintended expansion of power.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > Chevron deference specifically applied when agencies tried to expand powers in ways that were not reasonably within their mandate Not true. And I mean literally definitionally not true. Chevron deference only applies (definitionally) when the agency's interpretation is reasonable. With Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenged a rule, the court applied a two part test: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. Is the agency's interpretation of the legislation reasonable? If yes: the agency's rule wins. If no: the rule is bad. Without Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenges a rule, it works this way: Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2. Part 2. What's the court's opinion on the matter? That's the rule for this particular instance of the problem, with effectively zero binding authority on other instances of similar problems (e.g. a case on Compound x1 will have no bearing, a priori, on a virtually identical Compound x1.1)
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  It is also what happens when you pass dumb laws with no consideration of second order effects. If you want to ban bad plastics, mandate a safe alternative.
  - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
    > If you want to ban bad plastics, mandate a safe alternative. Not always possible, is it? I mean there must have been a time before plastics?
    - hypercube33 1y ago
      For most of this stuff, we had something - glass. Companies lobbied against it because they had to build in recycling costs, and I assume its more expensive to ship.
      - creaturemachine 1y ago
        The shipping issue is entirely new. There are generations alive today that survived without fresh fruit imported from across the globe.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    And pre-emptively ban new materials and outlaw attempts to innovate?
    - NewJazz 1y ago
      You can still synthesize new chemicals, but you have to run studies and receive informed consent from subjects before dumping it in the wider world.
    - WillPostForFood 1y ago
      Yes, but I'd reframe as preemptively get permission before use. Maybe an automatic approval with appropriate testing. Allow innovation, but add some layer of accountability.
- dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
  >audience for those products has substantially less information I assure you, they will not do anything with the information even if they had it. Convenience trumps every other consideration including safety.
  - convolvatron 1y ago
    I resent this framing as being entirely about short-sighted consumers valuing convenience. surely it has quite a bit to do with cost as well, both for the producer to increase their margins and also the end consumer. alot of it has to do with choice. the market presents very few non-plastic options in cases where plastic will do fine. so yes, convenience in the 'i hate to buy this plastic thing, but I dont have a week to find someone in estonia that still makes quality goods by hand and then wait for it to be shipped to me' sense
    - dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
      >I resent this framing as being entirely about short-sighted consumers valuing convenience. Your resentment is not valid. The switch to plastics did not happen overnight. There used a lot more choices in the past. Common people increasingly chose plastics over a period of time. ( or rather were lazy) Your resentment can be rephrased as - "I cannot come to terms with the fact that common people really are that stupid". Freedoms in various forms are generally not taken away overnight. As they say "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
      - ziddoap 1y ago
        Their resentment is completely valid.
        kylebenzle 1y ago
        Did you read comment above because yours does not not address the response at all (and you are wrong in that context). Again, dude above is saying clearly that the issue is man man, we did this, it's not a natural disaster, so there is no one to blame but ourselves, pretending it was an outside power that did this to you is not valid.
- iknowstuff 1y ago
  You’d be living in the stone age if it wasn’t for that so maybe calm down.
  - NewJazz 1y ago
    That isn't even close to true.
gosub100 1y ago
> a mole That's a very good pun even if it wasn't intentional.
motbus3 1y ago
A friend of mine who works in the field says that we make some effort to not remember that glass was a thing for a reason after the epidemy of the plastic from the 60s and 70s
486sx33 1y ago
True! You can also see that happening in real time with the DEA and the “schedule” of banned substances.

KurSix 1y ago

It's frustrating how often regulation or public pressure leads to these half-measures instead of actual safer alternatives