[londons_explore]

There are lots of countries with lots of governance models, yet none as far as I know would have proactively banned any of those things early on.

I suspect that means there is a flip side we aren't seeing. It means there is a huge disadvantage to banning some probably harmful chemical. For example, if you were a small island and you banned imports of everything containing any PFAS, you'd end up in the technological stone age - there are no PFAS-free iPhones, food, paper, or shoes. So, unless you have your own shoe factory, your people will have to go barefoot...

[DoingIsLearning]

Huge logic sleight of hand.

It is a very different piece of legislation to apply a cautionary principle to any substance in cookware, food containers, or in contact with human skin, versus a full out ban on iphones because some processor inside it used a PFAS lubricant at some point in the supply chain.

[goodpoint]

That's a false dichotomy. There are many other alternatives other than toxic materials VS stone age.

Also we are way way beyond "probably harmful".

[pitaj]

The huge disadvantage is many people dying because, in the long process of vetting a new chemical or drug, it was not available for use.