Not saying they shouldn’t be, but a problem is companies will just move on the the next, likely bad, similar chemical until it is also banned. I’ve seen suggestions to require chemicals to be proven not dangerous before widespread use, but this seems untenable. Perhaps the best solution is not to ban the chemicals themselves, but to obligate containment of waste, regardless of if it’s “bad”.
It feels like a lot of things that are "impossible" in the US work just fine (and often far better) in other countries. I don't know if it's defeatism or a reluctance to change, but it's so strange to me that even when it comes down to something like "Companies shouldn't be able to poison you intentionally for profit" people in the US seem too scared to even try anything different.
There are massive PFAS contamination areas in Belgium (Zwijndrecht) and Netherlands (Dordrecht) both caused by 3M both contaminating large rivers (Scheldt and Meuse) and water supplies.
Irrespective of the spirit of regulations this is very much a problem in Europe as well.
It's in the rainwater everywhere on the planet. There's no escaping it no matter where you are. The US company poisoned the entire earth and everything living thing on it. Seems a bit unfair to say "HA HA Europe! How well are your sane and totally appropriate regulations working for you now! Still got poisoned!". Well, so did Antarctica and every other nation. That doesn't make it a bad idea to want products tested before they're allowed to do what 3M did.
I am not disagreeing with the responsability of proving safety before making it into production much like what you have with medical devices.
My point was that despite stronger regulations the EU is not immune to environmental disasters and is now also struggling with 3M/Dupont PFAS water source contamination.
Why would a robust testing process prove to be untenable? We have a fairly high bar in medicine. For all it's flaws on the care and payment side, the medical research process seems robust without shortage of innovation.
In the US, it seems at the policy level this would be impossible to implement. From a practicality level, it would take very long to validate to the point of stifling innovation (good or bad) and would require international cooperation. Compared to medical research, medical interventions are risk based at the individual level and we are willing to accept marginal improvement with awful side effects. Chemicals apply risk at a societal level and settng by appropriate limits seems difficult vs mandating better waste containment.
Not saying they shouldn’t be, but a problem is companies will just move on the the next, likely bad, similar chemical until it is also banned. I’ve seen suggestions to require chemicals to be proven not dangerous before widespread use, but this seems untenable. Perhaps the best solution is not to ban the chemicals themselves, but to obligate containment of waste, regardless of if it’s “bad”.