[fasterik]

We update our beliefs as we get new data. There's not much else we can do.

There's a common thought pattern among conspiracy theorists. "Some conspiracies turn out to be real" so that justifies their belief in their very specific conspiracy theory. The same pattern occurs when we talk about chemicals in our diet or the environment. "Some chemicals turn out to be dangerous" but that doesn't prove that a specific concentration of a specific chemical is doing anything, unless we have data to support the claim.

[Saline9515]

Precaution principle exists, and in the case of food safety, "getting new data" make take years or be very costly.

For instance, bisphenols in plastics baby bottles were proved problematic after decades of use. Precaution principle would have recommended to avoid them (especially since they weren't necessary).

It's not trivial, and many businesses would rather see their consumers die than cut their margins. I remember buying some custom furniture; when it arrived it reeked of varnish smell. I called the factory, told them they didn't cure it correctly. Manager said "yeah we know, we know it's dangerous but people get cancers years later and you can't identify the source anyway" (true story).

[kakacik]

There is certainly more that we can do. Ie being more careful with introducing new chemicals with largely unknown long term effects.

The burden of proof shouldn't be decades of research seeing thousands of people developing serious health issues and/or dying, and then reacting. It should be on companies, having lengthy and expensive process for approval and then continue reviewing. This is not some app release ffs, we talk about lives and health of billions, how much more we can fail our children if we fail this.

Or you know what, you can do that with you and your kids, but please allow me and my family to use more conservative approach, I am happy to pay a bit extra.