zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
We really need to change the regulations around the introduction of new chemical compounds to our environment on a mass scale.

We keep encountering situations like this where a new chemical compound was introduced, becomes ubiquitous in our diets or environments and only later do we find out "Oops, it has serious health or environmental consequences."

It is worth the cost of slower introduction of new materials to take the time to ensure that those materials are safe. We're still paying the cost of introducing lead into our environment in a myriad of subtle ways. We still don't fully understand what the cost of the introduction of microplastics or PFAS is going to be. And regardless of the whether this particular study holds up under replication it is looking increasingly likely that aspartame is not something we should be consuming.

And what's most frustrating is that the people who profited most from these compounds never pay for the damage they cause to generations.

>>dbingh+55
> And what's most frustrating is that the people who profited most from these compounds never pay for the damage they cause to generations.

It cost exactly $0 to not drink poison

>>Eumene+u5
It cost 0 to not be obese

It cost 0 to not drink and drive

It cost 0 to ...

It's not a cost issue, it's a "we're slightly above average IQ monkeys, but we're still fucking monkeys" issue, we're easy to use and abuse, companies know that

>>lm2846+57
If we're monkeys then companies are monkeys too and they aren't responsible.

You're sneaking free will in the back door. In your view, "victims" don't have free will but big companies do.

>>slibhb+j9
What an annoying way to misunderstand a point. And also the entire discipline of marketing.

>>asmor+U9
You can’t just dismiss his point like that. It’s a valid question. If your argument is “people don’t know any better”, then why can’t someone also say “companies (which are just groups of people) also don’t know any better”?

You can say “companies should do more research on the consequences of this chemical before releasing it”, and you can also say “people should do more research on this chemical before drinking it”.

>>abadpo+gb
First of all, these are not the same thing. Manipulating people and being manipulated aren't mutually exclusive.

Second, these people spend their entire life mastering the art of manipulating large populations into consumerism and induced demand. Humans have limited bandwidth, and it wouldn't be most people's specific domain knowledge to spot the mechanisms and the resist them.

And, calling back to point one, even if you know the mechanisms of propaganda, you are not immune to propaganda.

>>asmor+9c
None of that answered the question though. Why are companies, which are made up of groups of people, expected to somehow have foreknowledge of the consequences of these chemicals, while other groups of people are not?

It has nothing to do with “propaganda”. Are people just supposed to magically know the long term effects of every chemical they ingest? And if not, why are companies supposed to magically know it? Do companies have a crystal ball that normal people don’t have?