undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmcv9y ago0 comments

Science doesn't prove things. It provides likelihoods and most likely explanations.

So the real question is: should something only be banned when it's 99.5% certain that it's harmful? Is 50% chance of it being harmful okay? Or 80%? And why?

The EU prefers to err on the side of safety. The US prefers to err on the side of profit. I don't see why the US approach would be better.

0 comments

green7ea9y ago

I can't up vote you enough because this is exactly it (that and many US companies using dodgy science since the bar is so low).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmcv9y ago0 comments

Science doesn't prove things. It provides likelihoods and most likely explanations.

So the real question is: should something only be banned when it's 99.5% certain that it's harmful? Is 50% chance of it being harmful okay? Or 80%? And why?

The EU prefers to err on the side of safety. The US prefers to err on the side of profit. I don't see why the US approach would be better.

0 comments

green7ea9y ago

I can't up vote you enough because this is exactly it (that and many US companies using dodgy science since the bar is so low).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse