US cosmetics are full of chemicals banned by Europe(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US cosmetics are full of chemicals banned by Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/22/chemicals-in-cosmetics-us-restricted-eu
125 comments
Let's just call it what it is: bribery.
Bribery? The dollar figures on that website aren't literal dollars being handed over to elected representatives. They list what the companies pay lobbying firm. Lobbying firms who get paid very well to craft messages and arguments for elected officials. If you've ever seen what a consulting company costs (hundreds of thousands of dollars for small projects), you'd realize most of that money is going to support lobbyist's lifestyles.
Yeah, "lobbying" should be outright banned.
Complex matter. There is legitimate lobbying, which is for expert groups affected by s policy to make their position known. The issue is that the process favours big commercial players that can cough up the cash for long-term professional lobbyists. Consumer groups, NGOs, etc. mostly have to resort to signature campaigns etc.
But lobbying is helpful. Consider niche technical issue where maybe 3-4 organisations do reply have established expertise (because they are commercially engaged). There is often on specific policy no established evidence at the moment in time when government has to make a decision, nor is the way forward obvious. Thus it's a matter of hearing everyone concerned and finding a nuanced path forward.
Wonlobbying is legitimately useful. But what has totally spun out of control is the US lobbying machine (which sadly is spreading to other places), which really often is just bribery in many ways.
But lobbying is helpful. Consider niche technical issue where maybe 3-4 organisations do reply have established expertise (because they are commercially engaged). There is often on specific policy no established evidence at the moment in time when government has to make a decision, nor is the way forward obvious. Thus it's a matter of hearing everyone concerned and finding a nuanced path forward.
Wonlobbying is legitimately useful. But what has totally spun out of control is the US lobbying machine (which sadly is spreading to other places), which really often is just bribery in many ways.
Better yet, don't make laws that are understood only by a few people.
I 100% agree that the regulatory process in the U.S. is insufficient and deeply flawed but this article is quite the piece of fearmongering. It's not enough to say, "in this one specific case this substance can be harmful, therefore it must be banned." You have to evaluate the conditions under which it is harmful and whether those conditions are like to occur in consumer use.
A lump of coal is a fairly harmless substance. Put it in your garden, on a shelf, sleep with it under your pillow. You'll probably never know a difference. Grind it up and breathe it every day for 10 years and you'll shorten your life by 5-15 years. Burn it and inhale it and you'll shorten it by 30.
This article doesn't concern itself however with how a substance is used. It's merely enough for something to have been harmful for it to be dangerous. Worse yet, there's no evaluation of the quality of the science indicating potential harm. They vaguely hint that a food dye is dangerous because one 2007 study showed it might increase hyperactivity in children? Give me a break. If that's our standard, that one study ever showed a possibility of potential harm we'll have to ban everything.
Again, I totally agree with the sentiment. The FDA should have its funding increased by 10 fold. They should be given the power to regulate supplements. They should be one of the most powerful and effective government agencies. But the standards of evidence are tremendously important. There's no reason to go full California and start serving coffee with a cancer warning.
A lump of coal is a fairly harmless substance. Put it in your garden, on a shelf, sleep with it under your pillow. You'll probably never know a difference. Grind it up and breathe it every day for 10 years and you'll shorten your life by 5-15 years. Burn it and inhale it and you'll shorten it by 30.
This article doesn't concern itself however with how a substance is used. It's merely enough for something to have been harmful for it to be dangerous. Worse yet, there's no evaluation of the quality of the science indicating potential harm. They vaguely hint that a food dye is dangerous because one 2007 study showed it might increase hyperactivity in children? Give me a break. If that's our standard, that one study ever showed a possibility of potential harm we'll have to ban everything.
Again, I totally agree with the sentiment. The FDA should have its funding increased by 10 fold. They should be given the power to regulate supplements. They should be one of the most powerful and effective government agencies. But the standards of evidence are tremendously important. There's no reason to go full California and start serving coffee with a cancer warning.
Potential for harm is only one side of the equation, benifit needs to sit on the other. Considering we are talking about cosmetics minimal benefit is combined with direct contact, regular ingestion, and even occasional contact with the bloodstream.
Harm is also more of a continuum than a binary situation. Ten individual sources of say lead exposure may not be that harmful on their own, but they add up. When talking about public heath we have often gotten it wrong by saying it’s low enough not to be an issue.
Harm is also more of a continuum than a binary situation. Ten individual sources of say lead exposure may not be that harmful on their own, but they add up. When talking about public heath we have often gotten it wrong by saying it’s low enough not to be an issue.
Good points. I generally agree.
>dioxins, used as an ingredient in Agent Orange, which the US sprayed during the Vietnam war.
Dioxins were not used as an ingredient. Small quantities of dioxins were unintentionally formed as side-products during synthesis.
Dioxins were not used as an ingredient. Small quantities of dioxins were unintentionally formed as side-products during synthesis.
The article seems to be about chemicals that are present, intentionally or otherwise, in the cosmetics. The fact that the dioxins arrive as a byproduct of synthesis instead of being deliberately added as an ingredient does not seem to change the truthfulness of the article.
Guardian often has little "errors" like this.
To be honest, it doesn't change the argument much.
I believe this "fact" is included with the deliberate intention of making people angry. If people are angry because they think the US deliberately poisoned Vietnamese people then that anger might transfer over to modern safety regulations. The false information has propaganda value.
I support European-style regulations, but I think this is a short-sighted way to argue. Dioxins in cosmetics are bad because of their objective toxicity, not because of emotional associations. Playing up the emotional angle with false information only makes the rest of your arguments look suspicious.
I support European-style regulations, but I think this is a short-sighted way to argue. Dioxins in cosmetics are bad because of their objective toxicity, not because of emotional associations. Playing up the emotional angle with false information only makes the rest of your arguments look suspicious.
> the US deliberately poisoned Vietnamese people
The US recklessly poisoned people; the Vietnam campaign had a disregard for Vietnamese life. The herbicide campaign, initially intended to clear forest cover, spread to deliberate use against crops to starve the population. The use of napalm was similar in its widespread civilian casualties.
https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/vietnams-horrific-legacy-...
"Nearly 4.8 million Vietnamese people have been exposed, causing 400,000 deaths; the associated illnesses include cancers, birth defects, skin disorders, auto-immune diseases, liver disorders, psychosocial effects, neurological defects and gastrointestinal diseases."
"According to the Red Cross of Vietnam, up to one million people are currently disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange, 100,000 of which are children."
If any of the Nazis had ordered this they would rightly have been put up against a wall and shot.
The US recklessly poisoned people; the Vietnam campaign had a disregard for Vietnamese life. The herbicide campaign, initially intended to clear forest cover, spread to deliberate use against crops to starve the population. The use of napalm was similar in its widespread civilian casualties.
https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/vietnams-horrific-legacy-...
"Nearly 4.8 million Vietnamese people have been exposed, causing 400,000 deaths; the associated illnesses include cancers, birth defects, skin disorders, auto-immune diseases, liver disorders, psychosocial effects, neurological defects and gastrointestinal diseases."
"According to the Red Cross of Vietnam, up to one million people are currently disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange, 100,000 of which are children."
If any of the Nazis had ordered this they would rightly have been put up against a wall and shot.
Another example was the cluster bombing along the borders of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos - hundreds of millions of bomblets were dropped, which still kill and maim to this day.
This bombing campaign was reckless in the extreme, and with complete disregard for human life - if anyone other than the US had done this, they would have been ostracised and declared war criminals.
Some more info on cluster munitions[0], which the US continued to use in more recent times in Iraq and Afghanistan, and AFAIK they still refuse to sign the anti-cluster bomb CCM treaty that around 100 nations have signed.
[0] https://fpif.org/the_curse_of_cluster_bombs/
This bombing campaign was reckless in the extreme, and with complete disregard for human life - if anyone other than the US had done this, they would have been ostracised and declared war criminals.
Some more info on cluster munitions[0], which the US continued to use in more recent times in Iraq and Afghanistan, and AFAIK they still refuse to sign the anti-cluster bomb CCM treaty that around 100 nations have signed.
[0] https://fpif.org/the_curse_of_cluster_bombs/
It's like explaining things to a five year old.
It doesn't matter if you 'meant to' kick your sister. You're kicking her and you need to 1) stop, and 2) apologize.
It doesn't matter if you 'meant to' kick your sister. You're kicking her and you need to 1) stop, and 2) apologize.
iirc, thats the same thing w/ agent orange. Agent orange (in particular) was a combination of a herbicide and a fungicide. The manufacturing of one or both of those created dioxins as a side product. They did not refine them further to remove the dioxins.
And afaik, it was the dioxins that were the cause of the health problems with agent orange, not the herbicide and fungicide.
So "toxic dioxins created as byproduct and not properly removed creating a health hazard" sounds like a fair comparison, since they share that.
So "toxic dioxins created as byproduct and not properly removed creating a health hazard" sounds like a fair comparison, since they share that.
also as an aside, Dow Chem/whoever dumped the dioxin they had removed in the middle of the Oregon desert
This applies to so many other things: cosmetics, food, drugs, guns, etc. And now they’re lobbying to influence other countries too (UK, Brazil, etc). Incredible amount of greed and lack of ethics.
Definitely! Growth hormone (rbGH/rbGT) used in American diary products has been prevalent for decades where those were forbidden in Canada and Europe. FDA practically turned a blind eye on this (and later research proven FDA's screwed-up) and nowadays market and producers are taking self-regulating approach. [1]
[1]: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1044/rbgh/about-r...
And this is just one of hundreds if not thousands FDA mishaps out there. The lobbying influence is BAD.
[1]: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1044/rbgh/about-r...
And this is just one of hundreds if not thousands FDA mishaps out there. The lobbying influence is BAD.
Do you have any links you could share that show cow hgh increases human igf-1 levels meaningfully?
I went to the article but it mentioned a change was detectable but didn't link to the study.
I went to the article but it mentioned a change was detectable but didn't link to the study.
Of course they don't have any links, because studies proving this don't exist. Another little known fact: even _human_ growth hormone is utterly pointless to consume orally: it gets destroyed by stomach acid. That's why people who take it go through the trouble of injecting it.
I also don't think I've ever seen dairy in store that doesn't come from cows "not treated with rBST". I don't buy organic unless the price is roughly the same, and for milk it's easily double, so I don't buy organic milk.
But even if it did boost igf-1 a tad, that'd be freaking great. People would start growing muscle, losing weight, etc.
I also don't think I've ever seen dairy in store that doesn't come from cows "not treated with rBST". I don't buy organic unless the price is roughly the same, and for milk it's easily double, so I don't buy organic milk.
But even if it did boost igf-1 a tad, that'd be freaking great. People would start growing muscle, losing weight, etc.
Everyday, women are smearing formaldehyde on their body...story time.
I bought a new construction house a few years back and have been paranoid about formaldehyde. Prior to moving into it, I bought a formaldehyde detector. I had it on at my old house just for kicks. Once in a while, it would reach high values and flash red with a death symbol (no joke). We realized it flashed red whenever my wife was putting on cosmetics.
It contains an ingredient called DMDM hydantoin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMDM_hydantoin) which is basically a slow release formaldehyde, which prevents bacteria growth on the cosmetics.
You can argue it's minute amount...maybe. But certainly enough for a detector to detect it after dispersion from across the room. Shampoo has it too. I've since checked for this ingredient prior to buying anything, and probably substituting for another bad chemical.
I bought a new construction house a few years back and have been paranoid about formaldehyde. Prior to moving into it, I bought a formaldehyde detector. I had it on at my old house just for kicks. Once in a while, it would reach high values and flash red with a death symbol (no joke). We realized it flashed red whenever my wife was putting on cosmetics.
It contains an ingredient called DMDM hydantoin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMDM_hydantoin) which is basically a slow release formaldehyde, which prevents bacteria growth on the cosmetics.
You can argue it's minute amount...maybe. But certainly enough for a detector to detect it after dispersion from across the room. Shampoo has it too. I've since checked for this ingredient prior to buying anything, and probably substituting for another bad chemical.
And is there a corresponding increased rate of cosmetics-related illnesses in the US compared to Europe?
I think this question is misguided. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source. The burden should be on companies that are creating an entirely new compound to prove that it is safe. See: talcum powder contamination taking decades to come to light even though it was a huge effect and a case of contamination instead of a new compound having some as-yet-unknown effect that we would then have to retroactively identify.
That's an impossible standard to meet though. If you're going to say "Prove that this new thing won't have any negative effects 50 years from now", that means it takes at least 50 years to release anything new. You might as well say "never make anything new".
> It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source.
Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them?
> It is extremely difficult or even impossible to trace problems back to a specific source.
Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them?
Then why is the EU banning random things without being able to definitively attribute any negative effects to them?
That's easy. It's for two reasons:
1. Trade barriers. The WTO mechanisms are full of holes. The so-called "precautionary principle" is just a justification to ensure that anything new the US invents can be instantly be made illegal in the EU until it can be "shown to be safe", i.e. the EU assumes everything to be dangerous by default until it decides otherwise. Actual science showing it's dangerous is not required. This is a great way to work around WTO rules on tariffs by abusing safety regulation and in particular protect French farming from genetically modified American imports. Americans aren't exactly dying en-masse from eating GM food (except maybe from obesity because food is so cheap), but pretending it's dangerous is a great way to block imports whilst avoiding a WTO dispute.
2. The EU regulatory apparatus is enormous. It has a staff of 32,000 people in the Commission alone, and many more in associated agencies. Many of these jobs are created for political reasons, for instance, countries are theoretically able to appoint one Commissioner each (in practice the head of the commission, Juncker, blocks any proposed appointment he doesn't like - this isn't meant to happen by treaty but does) and each Commissioner needs a staff.
But more importantly, unlike in democratic governments, the Parliament does not create law. The Commission does that, and as a consequence the quantity of regulations the EU creates is staggering compared to any normal government. The throughput of regulations banning things is limited in democracies by the size of the chamber: there's only so much a group of a few hundred people can do after all. But there are so many regulations being churned out by the EU that the Parliament has rubber-stamp votes over 1000 times per week. You can see a video about the deleterious effects this rate of voting has here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4
That's easy. It's for two reasons:
1. Trade barriers. The WTO mechanisms are full of holes. The so-called "precautionary principle" is just a justification to ensure that anything new the US invents can be instantly be made illegal in the EU until it can be "shown to be safe", i.e. the EU assumes everything to be dangerous by default until it decides otherwise. Actual science showing it's dangerous is not required. This is a great way to work around WTO rules on tariffs by abusing safety regulation and in particular protect French farming from genetically modified American imports. Americans aren't exactly dying en-masse from eating GM food (except maybe from obesity because food is so cheap), but pretending it's dangerous is a great way to block imports whilst avoiding a WTO dispute.
2. The EU regulatory apparatus is enormous. It has a staff of 32,000 people in the Commission alone, and many more in associated agencies. Many of these jobs are created for political reasons, for instance, countries are theoretically able to appoint one Commissioner each (in practice the head of the commission, Juncker, blocks any proposed appointment he doesn't like - this isn't meant to happen by treaty but does) and each Commissioner needs a staff.
But more importantly, unlike in democratic governments, the Parliament does not create law. The Commission does that, and as a consequence the quantity of regulations the EU creates is staggering compared to any normal government. The throughput of regulations banning things is limited in democracies by the size of the chamber: there's only so much a group of a few hundred people can do after all. But there are so many regulations being churned out by the EU that the Parliament has rubber-stamp votes over 1000 times per week. You can see a video about the deleterious effects this rate of voting has here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLh9DMuetm4
In general life expectancy in the US is lower than in the EU. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/health/american-life-expe...
So at least it can be proved that the toxic cosmetics don't lead to a longer life.
So at least it can be proved that the toxic cosmetics don't lead to a longer life.
Technically, it doesn't prove anything, as there are plenty (presumably prevailing) other correlations. It does make it slightly more probable.
TL;DR because Europe basically uses a whitelist model and the US basically uses a blacklist model.
And from the article it sounds like the US is reluctant to blacklist anything even when there are known harms. As someone from the UK, it surprised me to read that even asbestos is allowed.
Asbestos is allowed for certain uses, because it's very useful and can be used safely in certain contexts. Asbestos removal is taken very seriously when remodeling or destroying old buildings.
Exactly. From what I understand, you have to put a huge tent over it to prevent any escaping. Asbestos in buildings doesn't do anything when undisturbed, so if you're careful around it, it can stay until the building is redone.
Allowed? Perhaps. Is anyone using it? Well certainly not that I know of... who in their reasonable mind would?
You have to remember that the U.K. is very much of the mindset that everything will kill you until they’ve proven, tested, provided warning signs and signals, etc.
The US is the exact opposite. Until there is a problem... go for it (with some caveats, obviously). Sure sometimes that causes a problem, but on the whole the market does work itself out. Case in point? We’re still alive.
You have to remember that the U.K. is very much of the mindset that everything will kill you until they’ve proven, tested, provided warning signs and signals, etc.
The US is the exact opposite. Until there is a problem... go for it (with some caveats, obviously). Sure sometimes that causes a problem, but on the whole the market does work itself out. Case in point? We’re still alive.
We're still alive? Except those that died.
The problem with the black list model is that companies come to considerable size before the dangers are known. And then they have the lobbying power to save their businesses on the expanse of the public health, and life.
Case and point, countless. Pain killers, tobacco, fire proofing chemicals, etc etc. If the us corporations weren't so greedy as to disregard public health completely maybe a black model would be sustainable. But it doesn't seem the case
Case and point, countless. Pain killers, tobacco, fire proofing chemicals, etc etc. If the us corporations weren't so greedy as to disregard public health completely maybe a black model would be sustainable. But it doesn't seem the case
> Case in point? We’re still alive.
But we die younger than Europeans: 78.6 years in U.S. vs 82.4 in France or 83.3 in Italy.
I've always thought this was mostly because healthcare systems over there better tackle preventable deaths, but now I wonder if there might be some environmental factors at play too.
Data: https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.ht...
But we die younger than Europeans: 78.6 years in U.S. vs 82.4 in France or 83.3 in Italy.
I've always thought this was mostly because healthcare systems over there better tackle preventable deaths, but now I wonder if there might be some environmental factors at play too.
Data: https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-birth.ht...
Yes and we work more than the French I hear. Working less and better healthcare seem like they would be large factors.
As an aside, I think our “blacklist” approach also really leads to a lot of environmental harm. Our system basically says “use this unless we start to notice harm” which is a clear plan for legalized environmental harm. You can use some pesticide unless after 20-30 years of use a few studies indicate harm, then we will review it. This led to the Slient Spring and DDT being so widespread that the Peregrine Falcon almost went extinct.
Our default view that things are okay until they’re obviously causing problems isn’t the best. I likely wouldn’t want to live under a government that prohibited everything by default either, so I’d hope some middle ground could be reached. And ultimately I have to accept that some things should be prohibited even if I really want to do them. I suppose my policy plan would be to much better publicly fund research and whitelist with a fast initial review period and a collaborative research based initial rollout.
:shrug:
As an aside, I think our “blacklist” approach also really leads to a lot of environmental harm. Our system basically says “use this unless we start to notice harm” which is a clear plan for legalized environmental harm. You can use some pesticide unless after 20-30 years of use a few studies indicate harm, then we will review it. This led to the Slient Spring and DDT being so widespread that the Peregrine Falcon almost went extinct.
Our default view that things are okay until they’re obviously causing problems isn’t the best. I likely wouldn’t want to live under a government that prohibited everything by default either, so I’d hope some middle ground could be reached. And ultimately I have to accept that some things should be prohibited even if I really want to do them. I suppose my policy plan would be to much better publicly fund research and whitelist with a fast initial review period and a collaborative research based initial rollout.
:shrug:
>mostly because healthcare systems over there better tackle preventable deaths,
This is not a chart of life expectancy as a result of medical care. When you remove fatalities from car accidents and murders, the US life expectancy is in line with other developed countries.
This is not a chart of life expectancy as a result of medical care. When you remove fatalities from car accidents and murders, the US life expectancy is in line with other developed countries.
The United States are also an outlier for medical expenses though. American healthcare is not efficient, despite the common claim that US healthcare is expensive because it provides patients with the best treatments.
>despite the common claim that US healthcare is expensive because it provides patients with the best treatments.
To play devils advocate, nothing is cost efficient at the top end.
You can buy a Honda Civic that gets you from A to B just fine, a 'vette for under $100k or some super-car that's the absolute limit of what technology can do within the bounds of what's road legal and it costs an order of magnitude more than the 'Vette.
You can buy a rug at Walmart for $100, Ikea for $200 or you can buy some fancy pants oriental rug befitting royalty for a million bucks.
To play devils advocate, nothing is cost efficient at the top end.
You can buy a Honda Civic that gets you from A to B just fine, a 'vette for under $100k or some super-car that's the absolute limit of what technology can do within the bounds of what's road legal and it costs an order of magnitude more than the 'Vette.
You can buy a rug at Walmart for $100, Ikea for $200 or you can buy some fancy pants oriental rug befitting royalty for a million bucks.
Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost. Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents.
>Right, but then the US should have a higher life expectancy in exchange for the cost.
For plenty of maladies the US has the best care as measured by things like five year cancer survival rates for particular cancers.
>Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents.
If the point is to use life expectancy to compare quality of medical care, then you have to remove causes of death that don't involve treatment. E.g. if I'm a 35 year old person in good health sitting on the steps with my homies and someone drives by and shoots me in the head and I die, how is that a failing of medical care? It should be done from all countries.
Ultimately, life expectancy is a bad metric to use anyway. It treats it as a score for bureaucrats to maximize. In the US, at least, people have the right to live in ways that will reduce their life span.
For plenty of maladies the US has the best care as measured by things like five year cancer survival rates for particular cancers.
>Instead it gets the same and only after correcting for murders and car accidents.
If the point is to use life expectancy to compare quality of medical care, then you have to remove causes of death that don't involve treatment. E.g. if I'm a 35 year old person in good health sitting on the steps with my homies and someone drives by and shoots me in the head and I die, how is that a failing of medical care? It should be done from all countries.
Ultimately, life expectancy is a bad metric to use anyway. It treats it as a score for bureaucrats to maximize. In the US, at least, people have the right to live in ways that will reduce their life span.
The obesity rate alone says leagues here.
The reason asbestos is banned is because it was used and did cause real harms (and even today it's still occasionally found in old buildings).
Sure it didn't decimate the UK population but that's a very low bar to step over.
Sure it didn't decimate the UK population but that's a very low bar to step over.
Case in point? We’re still alive.
That's a rather crude metric...
That's a rather crude metric...
And yet really, isn’t that the most important one?
If the whitelist vs blacklist attitude were really as important as everyone in this thread is claiming, wouldn’t there be some mass catastrophic extinction-level event in the US? There’s not.....
If the whitelist vs blacklist attitude were really as important as everyone in this thread is claiming, wouldn’t there be some mass catastrophic extinction-level event in the US? There’s not.....
Not really. There's a large difference between catastrophe and hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths distributed across the country and across years from many different issues. One is very visible and the other can be hard to see but is still very significant. Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse.
But there's no significance. There's no evidence the precautionary principle works at all. As observed in a comment above, when you remove car deaths and murders (things unrelated to chemical regulation) US life expectancy is the same.
Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse
That logic is faulty. Allowing things until proven dangerous can be both not killing everyone and not killing a lot of people or making anyone's health or happiness worse.
For the precautionary principle to make a detectable difference to people's health, dangerous cosmetics would have to be staggeringly common, and cosmetics firms would have to be staggeringly willing to repeatedly sell cosmetics known to be dangerous. But that doesn't seem to be the case: are there any cases in recent times of Americans being seriously harmed by unexpectedly dangerous cosmetics? I mean, even just one?
Just because it's not killing everyone doesn't mean it's not killing a lot of people or making their health and happiness worse
That logic is faulty. Allowing things until proven dangerous can be both not killing everyone and not killing a lot of people or making anyone's health or happiness worse.
For the precautionary principle to make a detectable difference to people's health, dangerous cosmetics would have to be staggeringly common, and cosmetics firms would have to be staggeringly willing to repeatedly sell cosmetics known to be dangerous. But that doesn't seem to be the case: are there any cases in recent times of Americans being seriously harmed by unexpectedly dangerous cosmetics? I mean, even just one?
Most of these things don't result in a cleanly attributable death, just increased risk of already common end of life diseases. Or a reduction in quality of life.
HFCS won't kill you even if you drink it in bulk. Spend 40 years eating it and you get a 10% higher chance of, say, dying before 70.
HFCS won't kill you even if you drink it in bulk. Spend 40 years eating it and you get a 10% higher chance of, say, dying before 70.
And 'everyone is still alive' in New Delhi too, where you can chew the air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi
Not to be a jerk, but you really should do a bit of research before you make claims that no one would use it.
There was a large HN discussion not too long ago about the fact that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder contained asbestos [1]
The free market doesn't really work in this case because issues as a result of known carcinogens, asbestos etc can take decades to show up. By the time that happens, the executives in charge might've already changed, the company might be dead etc and it becomes harder to hold them accountable for essentially poisoning their customers. So yes, we're alive today. But in five or ten years, would you be happy to know your cancer was the result of a specific brand of baby powder?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18684384
There was a large HN discussion not too long ago about the fact that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder contained asbestos [1]
The free market doesn't really work in this case because issues as a result of known carcinogens, asbestos etc can take decades to show up. By the time that happens, the executives in charge might've already changed, the company might be dead etc and it becomes harder to hold them accountable for essentially poisoning their customers. So yes, we're alive today. But in five or ten years, would you be happy to know your cancer was the result of a specific brand of baby powder?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18684384
I never said asbestos was never used. I said no company, knowing what we know today, would continue to use it and that a regulation preventing its use would therefore be pointless.
Are there instances in the past where it has been used? Ok, sure. Are there instances where companies and people have flat out lied to regulators, both US and EU? I’m sure we can all think of at least one, there were criminal charges recently.
Clearly simply having a law doesn’t make it so.
Are there instances in the past where it has been used? Ok, sure. Are there instances where companies and people have flat out lied to regulators, both US and EU? I’m sure we can all think of at least one, there were criminal charges recently.
Clearly simply having a law doesn’t make it so.
I gave you an example of a company, knowing what we know today about the dangers of asbestos, continuing to sell their product despite knowing it contained asbestos. They were concerned about the dangers internally and proceeded to cover it up.
This is an example which directly contradicts your first paragraph.
This is an example which directly contradicts your first paragraph.
Even according to your link it stopped almost 20 years ago (2000), and you ignored the second paragraph, so... ball’s in your court.
No, it didn't stop in 2000. To quote the article directly:
>A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.
>A third verdict, in St. Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential liability: The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012, caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma.
And to address your second paragraph directly: That is literally why laws and regulations exist. There will be companies that break them yes, and laws exist in order to ideally punish them for doing so. What you're essentially saying is that 'murders still happen even though there are laws against it, therefore laws are useless' but applied at a company scale.
>A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.
>A third verdict, in St. Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential liability: The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012, caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma.
And to address your second paragraph directly: That is literally why laws and regulations exist. There will be companies that break them yes, and laws exist in order to ideally punish them for doing so. What you're essentially saying is that 'murders still happen even though there are laws against it, therefore laws are useless' but applied at a company scale.
That sort of approach worries me. It is literally impossible to prove safety. It is only possible to prove harmfulness. If you were dedicated to a whitelist model, nothing could ever be permitted because you would always require more testing. There is also an inherent problem with arguing "why should X be legal" instead of "why should X be illegal". One argues from a viewpoint of infinite restriction as your default state.
That's being pedantic. Europe uses a whiteout model, and it seems to be working. There are things being permitted. And it's arguably safer than the U.S. blacklist model. You can do reasonable safety checks.
Edit: It's arguably safer because the whitelist should be a subset of what the blacklist allows.
Edit: It's arguably safer because the whitelist should be a subset of what the blacklist allows.
Is it arguable? Is there data that shows a strong correlation between health issues in US patients and the cosmetics they use?
Arguably : it may be argued
I agree with you that data is important. But yes, it can absolutely be argued about with reasonable arguments without data.
I agree with you that data is important. But yes, it can absolutely be argued about with reasonable arguments without data.
I don't think so, but that might be because nobody tracks those data.
It works because you have guinea pigs who will test it for you. Even if it weren’t the US there would be other countries...
As another comment pointed out, you can never prove something is safe, so the whitelist model is inherently flawed. Asbestos was once considered safe, that’s why it was used as insulation. Turns out not so much under certain circumstances (like when disturbed and released into the air for you to inhale), so now we have to backtrack on that. That’s life.
As another comment pointed out, you can never prove something is safe, so the whitelist model is inherently flawed. Asbestos was once considered safe, that’s why it was used as insulation. Turns out not so much under certain circumstances (like when disturbed and released into the air for you to inhale), so now we have to backtrack on that. That’s life.
> As another comment pointed out, you can never prove something is safe, so the whitelist model is inherently flawed. Asbestos was once considered safe, that’s why it was used as insulation.
The rational conclusion there is that you should test more, not move to a blacklist model that allows everything until people drop dead, develop a serious illness or whatever.
The rational conclusion there is that you should test more, not move to a blacklist model that allows everything until people drop dead, develop a serious illness or whatever.
The whitelist model doesn't require that you prove something is safe in all conceivable circumstances present and future before whitelisting it.
It just means you test the common and the reasonably predictable cases first, and compare to other products in the same category if any, so that you can be reasonably confident in it before approving.
It just means you test the common and the reasonably predictable cases first, and compare to other products in the same category if any, so that you can be reasonably confident in it before approving.
> it's arguably safer
Actual data please?
How is it safer? Do we have data on people dying from cosmetics? What is the differential between woman life expectancy in Germany vs. the US? It's about the same in both countries for women. So are we going to argue that European cosmetics are "safer?" What's the actual data say?
Actual data please?
How is it safer? Do we have data on people dying from cosmetics? What is the differential between woman life expectancy in Germany vs. the US? It's about the same in both countries for women. So are we going to argue that European cosmetics are "safer?" What's the actual data say?
Well, the dangerousness of cosmetics probably doesn't express itself in death/life statistics.
The whitelisting model used in Europe is used to ensure that whatever substance causes the least amount of issues possible if released. You know, interactions with skin conditions, maybe breathing complications if inhaled etc.
The basic tradeoff here is potential (minor or not) health hazard vs. profit opportunities of companies.
Characteristically the EU chooses the first and the US the second.
The whitelisting model used in Europe is used to ensure that whatever substance causes the least amount of issues possible if released. You know, interactions with skin conditions, maybe breathing complications if inhaled etc.
The basic tradeoff here is potential (minor or not) health hazard vs. profit opportunities of companies.
Characteristically the EU chooses the first and the US the second.
That's exactly how a precautionary principle should be applied.
You always tests something extensively and only after a long enough time you consider it safe.
The US should have learnt from DDT and countless other disasters.
You always tests something extensively and only after a long enough time you consider it safe.
The US should have learnt from DDT and countless other disasters.
My wife is an aesthetician. She's had to put considerable effort into learning which off the shelf cosmetics are harmful to the point of uselessness.
^^ A few years back when in the US for a short while: "Uh, Mountain Dew, we don't have that." Turning the label, "oh, makes sense"... :P Sometimes one wonders if consumers can't read, or don't want to.
Does the EU have a general policy of banning any substance determined to cause problems when taken internally from external use automatically? Lots of the things mentioned in the article make it seem like that might be the case. Formaldehyde in hair straighteners for instance... yes, formaldehyde is a carcinogen.... if you swallow it. If it touches your skin momentarily? Not aware of anything claiming that's dangerous. Same thing with the parabens... they cause problems when taken internally, but used externally there shouldn't be any problem.
> they cause problems when taken internally, but used externally there shouldn't be any problem.
I don't know about parabens specifically, but that sounds like a reckless approach, akin to assuming a gun isn't loaded. You have proof it's harmful under X conditions, but you're just going to assume it's benign under Y?
I don't know about parabens specifically, but that sounds like a reckless approach, akin to assuming a gun isn't loaded. You have proof it's harmful under X conditions, but you're just going to assume it's benign under Y?
>I don't know about parabens specifically, but that sounds like a reckless approach, akin to assuming a gun isn't loaded.
Well, wait till you hear how the US considers gun ownership...
Well, wait till you hear how the US considers gun ownership...
yes, formaldehyde is a carcinogen.... if you swallow it
The main concern with formaldehyde tends to be inhalation.
The main concern with formaldehyde tends to be inhalation.
Things that you put on your skin often do not stay obediently there indefinitely. They find their way into your mouth, and as skin products dry they often become particulate matter that is eventually inhaled. This is especially true of makeup, since it's applied to the face already. It generally rubs off over time and gets on everything. Any one product may not have an overtly toxic effect, but when many such products are deregulated and leaving carcinogenic residues in a household the cumulative effect is serious and usually not sufficiently studied. There was an article just recently posted on here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-hidden-air...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-hidden-air...
It's amazing that all US critical posts are being downvote-bombed...
Also the claim that the US is not lax in its regulation is a bad joke. Half of the parties available literally made de-regulation their damn group mantra...
Also the claim that the US is not lax in its regulation is a bad joke. Half of the parties available literally made de-regulation their damn group mantra...
Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvoting, and especially please don't post nationalistic flamebait here.
HN users have a variety of views on both sides of any divisive topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN users have a variety of views on both sides of any divisive topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm American myself, don't mean to bag on a country, just was surprised by a few comments.
Fair enough though, didn't mean to come across as polemic/whining hahaha.
I'll try to conform to HN netiquette.
Fair enough though, didn't mean to come across as polemic/whining hahaha.
I'll try to conform to HN netiquette.
Imagine the reaction if that same piece had being published by RT.
This is hacker news, not Reddit world news or politics...
I'm not sure what that means, but not all hackers are in the US.
Not gp but I think the original post’s tone sounds like a political post on reddit, and I agree it doesn’t belong here. It’s classic complaining about downvoting.
All that aside, I think this is an interesting article we can talk about without this. To me it sounds like it might be a symptom of regulatory capture in the US.
All that aside, I think this is an interesting article we can talk about without this. To me it sounds like it might be a symptom of regulatory capture in the US.
And only about 50% of Hacker News users are in the US.
HN is traditionally quite pro-US to the point that many here were defending Boeing during the 737 Max fiasco. Not to mentions the vitriol against the EU when it fined American tech giants.
I find it amusing or at least ironic that you say "many here were defending Boeing during the 737 Max fiasco" when in reality the mainstream opinion here is very anti-Boeing and there is a down-voted and dead comment that says they didn't see anyone defending Boeing. Well of course, those people are/were a tiny minority so they got down-voted and buried like that comment. It's a perfect illustration of what it's asking about.
And this is going to get down-voted because of the first of fight club.
And this is going to get down-voted because of the first of fight club.
There are a lot of users on both sides of the topic, just like there on other controversial topics. But it always feels like the "mainstream" opinion is being the one most opposed to your own. The confident generalizations people make about HN are nearly all based on this feeling. That's why they contradict one another.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22hostile%20media%20effect%22...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22hostile%20media%20effect%22...
I'm "anti-Boeing" here though and even I don't see much controversy. Everyone who isn't down-voted seems to think Boeing is solidly at fault to varying extents. There's no hostile media effect going on (from my POV on this issue).
There have been plenty of comments defending Boeing and not being downvoted, though probably not as many as are critical. That's a function of it being an indignation story, though. Indignation always wins.
To be honest, it's kind of a shit article?
anigbrowl(3)
The Instagram influencers who push these products should be held accountable.
In the US... products can list an ingredient as "Fragrance" at which point, it becomes a Trade Secret which is far less regulated... they could put arsenic in fragrance if they wanted. The US handling of Chemical regulations is a joke.
The very same goes for food: US regulations are extremely lax when compared to other wealthy countries.
"US lobby groups for agriculture and pharmaceutical firms want UK standards changed to be closer to those of the US in a post-Brexit trade deal."
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47036119
This laxness appears in free trade negotiations where the second party to the country wants to forbid certain kinds of US agricultural goods and prepared foods and the US rebuttal is that that is protectionism. To be fair, there really is some real protectionism based solely on the protecting an economic sector now and then.
>A long list of potentially harmful ingredients banned in the EU are legally allowed in the US due to historically relaxed regulations
Maybe European regulations are overly strict?
US regulations aren't lax.
Maybe European regulations are overly strict?
US regulations aren't lax.
Clearly not as the US has adopted that mindset for new chemicals. From the linked article...
"The US has similar rules for new chemicals entering the market but no such precautionary principles for the thousands of potential toxins already in use"
"The US has similar rules for new chemicals entering the market but no such precautionary principles for the thousands of potential toxins already in use"
Hang on - doesn't that mean that every single chemical that was used in US cosmetics but not EU cosmetics would automatically be banned by Europe rather than the US, regardless of whether there was any particular reason it would be unsafe?
US regulations are more non-existant than they are lax. In the US a company is free to saturate you with whatever new chemical they invent until you can prove that it is causing you harm. In the EU a company has to first prove the chemical doesn't cause you harm before they saturate you with it. Its why all of us are saturated with hundreds of industrial chemicals and we have no idea what the long term health effects of this saturation will be.
https://www.forbes.com/2010/01/21/toxic-chemicals-bpa-lifest...
https://www.forbes.com/2010/01/21/toxic-chemicals-bpa-lifest...
>In the EU a company has to first prove the chemical doesn't cause you harm before they saturate you with it.
That's not possible. What the EU does is allow things which have been used by other people for some time once they feel comfortable that it's probably ok. In other words, they have guinea pigs.
That's not possible. What the EU does is allow things which have been used by other people for some time once they feel comfortable that it's probably ok. In other words, they have guinea pigs.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=H04&yea...