this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
79 points (100.0% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5310 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This sentence seems so meaningless. Things being pesticides or pharmaceuticals doesn’t make them harmful and even if they are harmful, are they in concentrations that matter for humans?
The science article they link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk9846
Uses much better more meaningful language to describe the same problem! It is also much shorter and easier to read.
Enter Europe's precautionary principle when it comes to food safety: you don't have to show that a chemical is harmful to ban it, but you have to prove it safe to be allowed in the food cycle. Guilty until proven innocent.
Ah maybe my perspective is wrong. I didn’t know this is how the EU does it. Does this rule apply to plastic or fabric as well? Or maybe only plastic used for food? regulating recycled plastic that is used for food makes a ton of sense to me.
As far as I know it applies to anything where there's a risk the chemical can affect the body. Like food and cosmetics (and the containers if there's a chance that anything can leach into the product), but I can imagine it also applies to clothing fabric because it's worn on the skin for a long time. Door handles and things like that? Less likely. But definitely toys, because children can (and will) chew on them.