[jongjong]

I don't know. I really wonder sometimes. For example:

Does adding an endocrine-disrupting 'tongue scraper' to children's toothbrush actually lower costs? Does this feature even add any value at all to the product? Why not clean the tongue with the bristles! The feature doesn't seem to justify the cost. All I can see is added marketing 'value'.

Also, people like to draw a distinction between "There is an intentional conspiracy by government officials to disrupt children's hormones" vs "Government officials know that children's hormones are being disrupted and they not only let it happen, they give the official seal of approval to the products, certifying their safety, when they are provably not safe in the aggregate if you look at population health statistics."

From my perspective, both cases are malicious and I don't see the point of trying to figure out which one is the case! It's a discussion of lesser evils and it seems like a deflection.

It's a conspiracy either way; in the second case, it's a conspiracy of neglect. A conspiracy of people getting paid to do nothing about a problem that they're claiming to be preventing! In the very best light, it's a false solution which acts as a placeholder for a real solution.

[alpaca128]

> The feature doesn't seem to justify the cost. All I can see is added marketing 'value'

You think marketing value does not justify added costs?

> Why not clean the tongue with the bristles!

Same reason you don't use the bristles to brush your hair. It doesn't work as well as a solution made for that purpose.

> Government officials know that children's hormones are being disrupted and they not only let it happen

Government officials define exact safety thresholds and rules for product materials to prevent health problems. That's why today we are debating trace amounts of something in plastic instead of lead in paint causing nationwide crime spikes and cognitive decline.