[grendelt]

The back and forth with regulatory agencies is so frustrating.

Another user here pointed out a while back that the better regulatory model, when it comes to health, is to put the onus on the supplier. We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.

[pmichaud]

This is essentially the model that we have with the FDA, right? And we have a bunch of problems with that too. I don't think there's a simple solution that just makes all scenarios better/easier/safer/whatever.

[wussboy]

Perhaps we do have problems with that model. But are the problems of the "tens of millions of humans have potentially been exposed to this harmful compound and the result seems disastrous" variety? Or are the problems of the "it takes longer than normal" variety?

Because both are "problems". But I know which one I'd rather have as a society.

[bobthepanda]

Sometimes the result actually results in millions of humans getting cancer as a result of inaction.

In most of the world (Canada, EU, Korea, Japan, etc.) sunscreen is regulated as a cosmetic, but in the US the FDA regulates it as an OTC drug. The last time an ingredient was approved for sunscreen use was in 1999, and in other countries there are more active ingredients with better properties than what is currently approved for use in the US.

The problem is that a good deal of the US approved list is basically off limits because they've since been shown to be unhealthy, and what's left on the list has challenging cosmetic properties to the point where people can't be convinced to apply sunscreen every day, because formulations do things like become oily and don't play nice with other cosmetics, or show up as chalky white pigment on any remotely dark skintones. https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/new-sunscreens-for-uva-...

[majormajor]

Do the results seem disastrous? https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de... Cancer death rates in the US are going down. The primary one is lung cancer, though, and cigarette usage has been declining... so would love to see more incidence rates broken out into types, too. But it seems at least non-disastrous in death outcomes, so far, unless you have those other numbers handy and are going off of that.

[adamredwoods]

A difficult task indeed: red dye no. 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_(dye)

[coredog64]

Proving a negative is trivial.

[geoduck14]

>We must scientifically prove the thing is safe to use, not have to prove it is unsafe to be removed.

Wait... so every restaurant has to show scientific proof that each of their ingredients are safe to use?

I'm pretty sure that is an impossible standard to meet.

[WarChortle]

You're overthinking this a little. If Monsanto comes up with a new weedkiller, they have to prove that its safe for humans before its put into use. It has nothing to do with restaurants. Obviously stuff would be grandfathered in as well. But its a fantastic idea going forward.

[geoduck14]

If you require farmers to use "approved" processes for farming, but you don't require grocery stores and restaurants to use those farmers, then they will simply buy food from farmers that don't follow those principles.

[Dylan16807]

If we're talking about domestic farmers, they're going to get caught at the same rate regardless of what you tell grocery stores and restaurants to do.

If you mean international farmers, I think it's obvious you'd have to apply the same rules to imported food, so no they won't simply buy food that doesn't follow the rules.

But also, even if we did require grocery stores and restaurants to use certified farmers in some way, that wouldn't be hard at all! That's not even in the same ballpark as requiring scientific proof of chemical safety.

[thfuran]

That would pretty much mean no new chemicals could be used for anything ever.

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[thatguy0900]

Some would consider that a good tradeoff for stopping cancerous forever chemicals from being in 80% of pee. And it will be less, not no.

[JamesBarney]

They probably haven't thought through all the good chemicals have done. If we stopped all progress in chemicals 100 years ago our world would like a very different place.

A less wealthy place where more people died of starvation.

[elcomet]

Of course they could, you just have to prove that they are harmless (at least in their expected usage and dosage)

[thfuran]

Great, so we're just going to need a few long term clinical trials assessing the impacts of each of ingestion, skin contact, inhalation, eye exposure, etc. separately for childhood exposure, adult exposure, exposure during pregnancy, acute exposure, chronic exposure, and so on. 100 billion dollars and thirty years later, maybe you can start provisionally selling your slightly better scotch tape.

[jmole]

That’s a little disingenuous. Something like an herbicide that’s broadly applied to fruits and vegetables that millions of people are eating should be under far higher scrutiny than a niche product that has limited human contact.

[edflsafoiewq]

How do you do that?

[its_bbq]

Well that's a feature if we can't come up with chemicals that aren't harmful at industrial scale

[thfuran]

"Not proven harmless" and "harmful" are very different things.

[timcash]

yup