[cyanydeez]

Unfortunately, the EPA, and modern science has no proactive models to predict toxicity.

By the time disclosure occurs, studies are completed, you're 5 to 10 years into mass production. And a ban then gets another 5 years and manufacturing just needs to rotate a few molecules and those studies are now irrelevant.

Until we have a predictive model of toxicity, there's no real ability to do anything but in decadal scales.

[thatguy0900]

Or you can just mandate that new chemicals need the studies before they are mass produced, not after. I really don't see a reason companies need to be able to invent a new type of plastic then immediately start spraying it onto everything I eat.

[colordrops]

Absolutely. We are at a point where we have ore than enough technology to survive comfortably, and any new chemicals introduced into the environment should get approved before use.

[landemva]

Would this ban include EUA vaccines, or would you envision an exemption for Pfizer products?

[vlovich123]

I think EUA would be fine except for the fact that no one is probably introducing new plastics in an emergency situation anyway. Also the EAU authorization has lasted way too long. I think if you ask most reasonable people the emergency is over. Certainly lots of pandemic-era behaviors are over.

[concordDance]

This would basically freeze chemicals at the ones we currently use, with innovation being essentially impossible due to cost.

Continuing to let us experiment with new chemicals may be better.

[thatguy0900]

The "experimenting" taking place right now is pouring it into our body and water supplies. How much does that cost? An unfathomable amount, but it's not paid by the companies, so they don't care.