Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Those BPA-Free products you've been using? Turns out they contain more Synthetic Estrogen than BPA, and the Plastics Industry has developed the testing methods the EPA uses that intentionally don't detect it because: Free Market   (motherjones.com) divider line 16
    More: Scary, BPA, EPA, free markets, idea, Environmental Health Perspectives, Michael Green, estrogens, big tobacco  
•       •       •

5942 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-07 02:22:26 PM  
4 votes:

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.


Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.
2014-03-07 02:39:14 PM  
2 votes:

jigger: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.


What you'd get is the certifying agency crippling or buying out other certifying agencies and/or creating shells to hide the fact.

Or you'd get what you basically have now, with weakened regulatory agencies -- the producers performing certification duties under the radar, and obscuring the truth.

Libertarians believe that information is most free in their idealized, libertarian society, but actually the opposite is true.
2014-03-07 02:33:13 PM  
2 votes:

nexxus: This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.


Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.
2014-03-07 04:22:09 PM  
1 votes:

nexxus: DNRTFA


The article's main story was how a private company ($80,000 startup) dedicated to provide the exact 3rd party testing you advocate was discredited and silenced by the company ($7 billion) making the products being tested.

Specifically, despite internal testing that showed otherwise, the plastics company lied to its customers about the hormonal impact, and then sued to have the testing party injoined from making claims about the hormonal impact of the plastic.
2014-03-07 03:30:22 PM  
1 votes:

real_headhoncho: Have you ever heard of Discordianism?


Yup, got the book too. Hilarious.
2014-03-07 02:55:19 PM  
1 votes:
Oh look, DDT all over again.
2014-03-07 02:44:38 PM  
1 votes:

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.


That's a fascinating color of sky you have there.
2014-03-07 02:36:21 PM  
1 votes:

nexxus: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river.  And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc.  All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different.  Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.


www.duntemann.com
Totally.
2014-03-07 02:35:49 PM  
1 votes:
The problem is not what's in the plastic.  It's using the plastic to begin with.  Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will  run out and need to find alternative energy sources.  We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to.  Imagine that.
2014-03-07 02:29:46 PM  
1 votes:

generallyso: They'd live long enough to reproduce and that is all that is required.


No it isn't.
2014-03-07 02:23:59 PM  
1 votes:

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.


Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


i421.photobucket.com

yotamak.blogs.com


Totally.

2014-03-07 02:17:19 PM  
1 votes:
Sure I'm passing the occasional tumors and menstrus through my urethra but on the upside, my tits are fuller and perkier than ever!
2014-03-07 02:14:46 PM  
1 votes:
Products containing BPA never contained enough BPA to have an effect. The whole thing was alarmist rhetoric based on science that had equivocal results.
2014-03-07 02:13:44 PM  
1 votes:

nexxus: Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA


Not sure if trolling, or just stupid.
2014-03-07 02:13:05 PM  
1 votes:

nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

img.fark.net

You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.
2014-03-07 02:10:57 PM  
1 votes:
Ridiculous headline.  This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter.  They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report