Curious to see how instant popcorn packaging will change. Back to the rattle aluminum foil containers?
“Companies told the FDA that it could take up to 18 months to completely exhaust the market supply of these products following their final date of sale.”
With no other context, I'd read that as more "the voluntary phase-out period is over, because now we've entered the mandatory phase-out period" (not that the voluntary period has already 100% worked)
The voluntary phase is more of an impending notice that you, as a food manufacturer, better figure something out now before everyone buys up the existing supply capacity of non-PFAS packaging during the mandatory phase.
Something I realized recently was that you can just buy popcorn kernels in bulk and pop them in the microwave using a covered bowl. I don't think I'll ever buy instant popcorn baggies again.
You can also just put them in a brown paper bag to replicate the popcorn bag experience. Just fold and pinch the top, add whatever salt and oil you want. Corn kernels are crazy cheap too, it's probably $0.05 a bag.
I just use a pot. I put in a tablespoon or so of coconut oil, melt it over medium heat with a few kernels and when they pop add a bunch more to almost cover the bottom of the pot. Then I put a lid on it, canted so it lets the moisture leave but not the popcorn and remove from heat when the popping slows. Then I add salt and shake and done. It takes just a few minutes.
I do almost the same. But I use olive oil and toss the freshly popped kernels in cayenne pepper and some nutritional yeast. Delicious and fairly healthy snack!
That's how my wife does it: buys a bag of kernels and puts some into a brown paper sack for microwave heating. Alternatively, they still sell those air poppers[0], which tend to produce better results, so you can use one of those.
Using a paper bag is especially fun if you have young kids since a kindergartner can stir the kernels with oil in a bowl, pour them into the bag, add salt, and shake vigorously. I think it was almost as much fun to make as it was to eat.
That's right folks, come on down, get some for yourselves! No one can beat that secret recipe flavor we've been cooking for over 9 yards and 18 minutes. Been a family secret for over 10 and a half generations folks! We promise you, no one can beat that original flavor folks!
what is hard about adding some salt and then shaking it? I've never had a problem with salt and butter distribution. Maybe you should look up some youtube videos on the best pans and techniques for making stovetop popcorn.
Man, tough crowd here with strong opinions on homemade popcorn. Alls fair in the arena of opinion but I’m tellin’ y’all, a bag of Redenbacher is easy, reliable, and absolutely delicious.
I have an air popper, and it works amazingly well. I have had the same one for over a decade too. No oil is required, which is nice, since my preference for butter is hardcoded in my Southern DNA.
Teflon should have never, ever ever have been released for use in pans. The documentation on it is 100% correct, it is completely inert, completely safe, completely OK... as long as it doesn't exceed a specific temperature.
Once that temperature is breached, the coating changes chemically. It off-gasses (and, for example, killing any canary near the kitchen). The teflon coating is no longer safe, that same chemical change has modified its chemical structure. And at that point, cooking on it means your food is now laden with those chemicals, and any flake of teflon you ingest is dangerous as well.
This is why using teflon in pans is just insane. The approval process presumed that no one would let a pan get too hot. What?! As if no one might get distracted by an emergency with a child, a phone ringing, someone coming to the door, and BAM!, the pan > 500F for a minute, and becomes death.
But conversely, things such as bread makers, and popcorn makers are sensible uses for teflon! They have internal thermostats, and often cannot easily even get to 500F. They won't cause this chemical change, and so are good and safe for this purpose.
Of course, I don't blame you for disliking teflon. I think it was absurd that it was approved for use in normal frying pans.
So, I lied. I actually have two models. One model I can do that in, but the other model has a mesh bottom over the heating element in which a fan blows the hot air. Thus, the mesh bottom one would be a bad, bad time if I put anything in it lol.
It’s funny, I get buying things that save a bunch of time (bread for example) - but it literally takes about the same amount of time to make popcorn on the stove as it does to microwave it, and the quality is much better (well really just using real butter makes it so much better), that I’m perplexed as to why anyone would bother with the microwave stuff
This is amazing news, but as is often brought up when discussing PFAS, will something else that we don't yet know is harmful replace the function these substances were serving?
I feel like a realist’s take is still positive. Some will be replaced with wax or other safe options. Others will use sketchy unregulated chemicals. But I can’t see those chemicals being much worse on average than PFAS. So a net positive overall.
These companies will not be stopping the use of items until they have a replacement. I don't understand how we can't just test the items intended as the replacement rigorously.
I mean we can and likely will. It won't stop it from being unsafe in a new novel to be discovered way.
You can't replace it with anything known to be unsafe. The FDA's process isn't actually that bad, if one can tell in advance it will be unsafe then no bueno. But if it seems like it should be safe in theory and nothing we know currently contradicts that then go for it.
Trans fats is a great example, they occur naturally in food we already eat and look chemically to be perfectly fine. Given the scientific knowledge at the time it would have been impossible to predict in advance that they were harmful to humans.
People say it's blacklist vs whitelist but outside just banning everything new it's hard to get stricter. There's
not much an approval from the FDA would do except verify that they did the testing they said they did. This isn't a case of the FDA being like "shoot if only we had seen this sooner we would have never allowed it."
The FDA's process would be much better if learned which substances are unsafe faster and responded to the knowledge that a substance is unsafe faster. PFAS were introduced in the 1940s. We started getting an idea that they were harmful in the 2000s. Six years ago the term "forever chemical" was coined and it entered mainstream discourse.
It took us ~60 years to start to realize they are harmful, another ~15 to be certain, and another ~5 to ban them.
It is kind of strange that because we cannot test products on individual people because that would be inhumane, we end up testing products on animals, deciding they're ok, and then dumping these chemicals on billions of people only to find out 50 years later that there are unexpected side effects.
I have vague memories of how people were so concerned about deforestation and trash that they pushed to get rid of paper bags and replace them with safer, clean, recyclable plastic, and now we still have deforestation and trash but also now plastic rains from the skies and lodges in the clogs in our arteries and has polluted distant islands where no human has ever touched foot on and created an island sized patch of garbage in the ocean that needs billions of dollars of cleanup to fix.
Oh well, I guess that is "someone else's problem". Yay.
No. I am pointing out the irony of the situation that if we were cruel enough to test the effects of these chemicals on a select few humans that it would have prevented humans worldwide from suffering under the cruelty of an untold multitude of side effects, but our own sense of ethics and justice prevented us from doing the thing that created the least total amount of suffering and cruelty.
That being said, I would still not advocate for human testing of chemicals and products, not even for death row inmates because there are too many things people would want to test and there is no bottom once we start going down that slide.
However, I would advocate for digital human simulacra that we could test the effects of chemicals on rather than any living creature. I hope that in the near future we could make a virtual human that we can carry out these tests on at many times normal speed so we can solve these things once and for all.
Yes, there is a dilemma that human test subjects could potentially save more lives than it cost. This is largely a utilitarian argument at its core. The current social more -- largely established post WW2 -- is that we should greatly regulate human test subjects and do a lot to mitigate the risks associated with it.
I'm a little behind on the times it seems, but how would wax be produced in such industrial quantities? Which kind of wax? There's several, some artificial some not.
Wax paper and parchment paper (often silicone impregnated) are already huge established businesses. The amounts used in other products in already substantial.
Unfortunately, like BPA, they will likely replace it with something just as harmful but less tested, since chemical regulations in the US work on a blacklist and not a whitelist.
A whitelist does not imply 20 years testing data. It means, allowed substances need to be explicitly authorized before introduction to the consumer market.
For food, pharmacological and cosmetic ingredients, the EFSA requires scientific evaluation concluding no harmful effects in advance. Of course, if later harmful effects are observed authorization can be withdrawn. This is in contrast to e.g. the FDA process where such substances do not have to be demonstrated safe like that beforehand, AFAIK.
Because PFAS were considered inert and safe for the longest time. And they are widespread across applications and industries. However, they are in the process to be phased out completely. PFOA are already restricted, I think.
A few brands of dental floss do, although I think they all deny having PFAS in them, so I think the best speculative reason I've heard is that it's actually potentiality lubricants from the machines in manufacture getting onto it - which is just as bad, so those companies saying they don't put PFAS into their floss when there's detectably PFAS on it (and raised levels showing up in people who use it) is not a good defence...
Thermal receipts are actually bisphenols, not PFAS ('forever chemicals') I think. Still bad but different kind of bad (endocrine disruptors). There does seem to be a big push to get rid of it in Europe (most receipts I have from France advertised themselves as being BPA free or phenol-free), so I don't know why it doesn't really seem to be of any concern elsewhere.
Disruptors, forever chemicals that disrupt... seem like a blanket law that anything we touch or breath shouldn't have these might be somethign to look at.
An unelected group of bureaucrats should not have the power to enforce their own beliefs. It should come from congress because citizens elected them. The bureaucrats were never elected.
However, I do not expect the average congressperson to have the level of expertise in multiple disciplines (like biochemistry, oncology, endocrinology, etc.) required to make decisions about these sorts of things. I'm also not inclined to think that the average congressperson would do the right thing in regards to regulating business when large donations to their campaigns from those industries are involved.
Everything in politics is about delegating authority. The bureaucrats were indirectly elected by the bureaucrats we did elect who gave them their authority. It's also why citizens don't vote on laws themselves.
SCOTUS wants Congress to do its job of making laws, instead of having an unconstitutional fourth branch of government exercises all the powers of the other three branches. The system of checks and balances you learned in school has become a farce, with agencies making rules with the force of law, prosecuting violators for breaking those rules, and adjudicating those violations in their own administrative court systems.
You can appeal, but that’s not the same. For adjudications, the courts defer to the agency’s findings, as if it were a lower court (which it isn’t).
You can also appeal rulemakings. But that creates this crazy system where the executive branch makes the law, and then random interested parties hold up the law in the courts for years. So the executive branch and judicial branch both have their fingers in the pie—the only branch that doesn’t is the one that’s actually supposed to make the law, Congress.
Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules. Everything you’re describing as some huge travesty sounds like a sensible and meaningful optimization of a system that already tends to be extremely overburdened.
I don’t want every single corporate rule breaking attempt to immediately compete with murders for courtroom time.
Obviously everyone should have the right to use the justice system if they need to, and they do have that right.
> Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules
Those “rules” are equivalent to laws. The whole point of a written Constitution is to enforce fundamental structural constraints on the government, such as Congress rather than the executive being the one that makes laws.
And one of those “constraints” is that Congress is empowered to create federal agencies to execute its laws. The rules under those agencies are backed by enabling legislation, and if you disagree with the connection between a rule and its enabling legislation, you can go to court and make that argument.
I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system.
All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.
If our government can’t accomplish the most basic tasks of being a government without violating our constitution, then we should just admit we are a failed state and disband.
I do not want to actually live in a system where _elected non expert_ people are making decisions for health, communications, space travel rules, internet access, business rules, agriculture, flight regulations, etc.
Someone getting elected is not qualified to make these decisions. They are however, somewhat qualified to represent the will of the people they represent by setting up agencies with missions to address these problems that hires experts to solve them.
Our country has a lot of failures. Executive agencies are not one of them.
Our constitution creates a republic, governed by elected representatives. Not an expertocracy where our elected representatives simply serve to appoint and facilitate the work of Harvard graduates who actually run the country.
The rightful government is the one the Constitution created, not the pretender to the throne we have now.
"By your fruits ye shall know them." One could venture that most people care far less about a government's fidelity to any particular abstract written standard than they do about whether the government does an acceptable job keeping things running.
The US constitution isn't a holy relic handed down by Zeus; it's an extremely compromised document based on the political needs, concerns, and compromises of 1787, helpfully but inadequately amended over the last 200-some years. The worst parts are the anti-democratic features originally put in place to protect the interests of the sparsely-populated slaver states. Inasmuch as we have a functional government today, it's because the functions we need have been taken up by agencies neither required nor forbidden by the constitution, but generally created by enabling laws for the executive branch. You can't just throw those things away unless you are willing to adopt a completely new constitution written to meet modern needs.
>You and I both know congress won’t be able to do anything
Why is this relevant? This is like complaining that an alarm feature doesn't exist when it's not clear who would actually do anything if the alarm ever went off.
Because the country has people relying on it to keep them safe?
No system the size of a state is perfect, and heck I don't think what is being proposed here is perfection. I do not want to wait for a very slow-moving-system to decide if, say, an ingredient is a threat to human health.
If you say we should fix this by a constitutional amendment to allow federal agencies to operate the way they are now? Sure! However in the meantime I'm not going to advocate for breaking the current system and extending suffering for people just to follow a documented written centuries ago.
There has been a huge push by corporations over the last two decades by corporations successfully lobbying federal agencies to let them self-regulate and the resulting disastrous consequences for our health, safety, and the environment.
The Boeing MAX second shitshow is on the front page of HN. Both are the direct result of the FAA "trusting" Boeing to self-regulate/inspect etc.
The FRA has let rail freight companies do basically whatever they want. Result? East Palestine, not to mention the railroad industry having free reign to leave trains parked bisecting towns and counties, blocking fire trucks, ambulances, etc.
Deregulation of the mortgage industry? Yeah, that's worked so well...twice now.
Self-driving cars? That's been going so well, with some company's vehicles caught repeatedly violating traffic laws, and one even killed a woman walking across a road.
USDA? The meat processing industries have pushed hard to self-regulate their inspections while we have ever-growing incidents of food contamination...and the number of inspectors has been slashed.
ATF? Doing a fraction of the inspections and enforcement they used to because of staff and budget cuts.
OSHA? Same. Fraction of the inspections they used to.
To then come up with "federal agencies are run amock and need the USSC to reel them in" is a truly wild hot take.
What's actually happening is that these disasters are prompting agencies to put back their regulations and folks like you are pretending that this is some new big-bad-wolf crackdown on the poor poor corporations which are currently all enjoying record profits...
> To then come up with "federal agencies are run amock and need the USSC to reel them in" is a truly wild hot take
I agree with most of your points until this one. The only question for the Supreme Court is whether the Constitution allows what has become a fourth branch of government that effectively subsumes the other three. Whether that fourth branch is doing a good job or bad job, or could be doing a better job, is besides the point.
Even as a law student reading the case notes in my admin law textbook (https://faculty.westacademic.com/Book/Detail?id=335338), it seemed pretty clear to me that the justifications for the whole scheme were contrived.
In fact, all of the problems you mention are arguably caused by the fact all these important decisions are being made by a court branch of government that isn’t in the Constitution and sits outside the system of checks and balances. The people you can vote on aren’t actually the ones running the country. And the ones running the country are people you can’t vote on.
For example, inspecting airplanes seems like exactly the thing the executive branch should do. But deciding that airline makers should be allowed to self-inspect airplanes? That seems like lawmaking Congress should do. And that change never would’ve gotten through Congress.
Even defenders of the administrative state do not argue that the Supreme Court can simply “reinterpret” the Constitution to allow executive agencies to make law. That’s too intellectually dishonest even for the “living Constitution” folks. Instead, they rely on legal fictions to distinguish administrative rules from laws.
And in some cases, to be fair, that legal fiction suffices. Congress can outlaw harmful drugs and then have the executive make lists of which drugs are harmful. But in many cases, the rules being made by agencies are indistinguishable from laws.
The funny thing is that there’s a couple of agencies that actually respect the distinction between administrative rules and laws, because they date back to the early republic. The USPTO, for example, has all sorts of rules governing the administrative process of getting a patent. But it doesn’t have the power to make or change patent law. It can’t make legislative decisions, such as deciding that patents should be valid for a longer or shorter amount of time. Congress must do that.
> The USPTO, for example, has all sorts of rules governing the administrative process of getting a patent. But it doesn’t have the power to make or change patent law. It can’t make legislative decisions, such as deciding that patents should be valid for a longer or shorter amount of time.
This is true of every other agency as well. They can changes rules, not laws and the rules do not supersede the law.
> But deciding that airline makers should be allowed to self-inspect airplanes? That seems like lawmaking Congress should do. And that change never would’ve gotten through Congress.
Congress has the ability to make laws about that even after it’s been widely publicized and they haven’t.
Failed state or does Congress understand and trust the FAA will appropriately make changes?
Putting it in software terms: The administrative state is arguably the result of a lot of incremental hacks adopted to cope with decades of changing conditions — and the fact that political polarization (and our imbalance of power favoring small rural states) has made it impracticable to try to modify the "code" in a "proper" fashion. (Not least this is because it's the production version that would have to be modified, with little opportunity for beta testing.)
Sure, there's lots of code smell. But the code runs, more or less. Continuing to run the existing hacked version seems preferable to the alternative of giving up and shutting everything down.
By “proper” you mean “legal” and that makes all the difference. If the highest law of the land requires your OS to be a micro kernel, then sorry you’re not putting the GUI in kernel space, even if that would improve performance. And if you’ve already done that, well we gotta rip it out.
One of the great virtues of Anglo culture—one that’s unfortunately been diluted to a great extent in America—is its formalistic, rule following nature. Our tolerance of fundamental departure from the formalism of our Constitution should be a matter of shame, in and of itself.
But the complaint here isn’t merely aesthetic—about “code smell.” The ways in which we have ignored the constitution has changed who runs the country. And that’s bad for the country. No matter who you vote for, the actual running of the country will be done by the same corporate-friendly center-left bureaucracy. That’s not just frustrating to the right, it’s also ultimately frustrating to a large swath of the left. Every four years election promises go into the black hole of the administrative state, where they make at most minor changes in how the country is run.
> If the highest law of the land requires your OS to be a micro kernel, then sorry you’re not putting the GUI in kernel space, even if that would improve performance. And if you’ve already done that, well we gotta rip it out.
Except nothing in the highest law in the land requires the OS to be a micro kernel. The nondelegation doctrine [0] arose from a needlessly-cramped (and result-oriented) interpretation of the Constitution's grants of federal power. That interpretation was correctly jettisoned in the New Deal's response to the societal threats posed by the impact of the Great Depression.
Again:
• The vast majority of software users couldn't care less whether the OS is a micro kernel — they just want code that works, with reasonable reliability and efficiency. If it's not unreasonable to describe the existing OS as being a micro kernel, then let's just move on.
• By the same token, the vast majority of citizens don't care how government is structured, they just want responsive, reliable service that doesn't needlessly intrude on their lives and isn't excessively costly. It's not at all unreasonable to say that delegation to agencies is not inconsistent with the Constitution's grants of federal power. So let's just move on and spend our time and energy on actual problems, instead of trying to return to the imagined doctrinal purity of yesteryear.
• When actually changing the "kernel" (the Constitution) is difficult or impossible, as now, then workarounds are needed. Moreover, trying to do a complete rewrite of the running production system (i.e., a constitutional convention, à la 1787) would be reckless.
• The administrative state is not unaccountable — we still have elections (at least for now), and administrative regs do change when administrations do, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years.
> Every four years election promises go into the black hole of the administrative state, where they make at most minor changes in how the country is run.
And that's a bad thing? The administrative state is like code that's been tweaked to try to accommodate a shipload of edge- and corner cases, i.e., what's wanted by different people and interest groups who make their voices heard when things aren't being run to their liking.
I don’t believe it’s possible or reasonable for Congress to make all laws and regulations for every part of our society.
I think the only thing at question should be the scope of delegation and there are arguments to be made about that.
IMO this argument is an attempt by small government conservatives to dismantle most/all regulatory oversight and rule making knowing full well that congress cannot meaningfully substitute.
I think the comment is referring to the Court’s precedent of “chevron deference,” which is the idea that courts should defer to government agencies to decide how to apply laws whose meaning may be unclear.
Imagine SCOTUS thinking that Congress would have time and capability to pass a law on every chemical that the FDA has banned over its existence in order to protect the country. We're talking about the same group that contains people like Gaetz, Boebert, and that dude that thought you could capsize an island.
Even when there's a list of what's in it, there are certain areas where they are allowed to not list them because of "trade secrets" or whatevs. Look at the ingredients for spices as an example. In skincare products, the fragrance is an example so it only says "parfume" or just fragrance, yet it's one of the areas for some of the worst offenders of ingredients.
It is hard to "vote with the wallet" when the chemicals are present everywhere and we hardly know where all it is present - maybe if there is a list of top N most-used/common most dangerous items to avoid - popcorn bags for example.
This is excellent news, but it is still too little. Plenty of other chemicals and ingredients in our lives have nasty health consequences.
Phthalates are in everything, including most food/beverage packaging, and have a mountain of evidence going back 10+ years showing that they cause reproductive harm. The FDA has all the evidence it needs to regulate them but it’s doing nothing. PFAS had to do a lot of damage before it got to this point, it’s a bit disheartening.
As an outsider I can't say if this is the truth, but I've heard that calls from the FDA for more funding and power are being purposefully ignored by the kind of people who would rather not have oversight over corporations.
Since if it doesn't get adequate funding and powers, it can't do its job, and then you can argue that it's useless and have a reason to weaken it even further, until you can eventually abolish it, which of course was the goal all along.
This may be a dumb questions, but how hard would it be to make something for us to stop these chemicals from damaging us or, at least, reduce the impact? Is it even possible?
Even with these chemicals being as difficult as they are to verifiably remove, I can only imagine it'll be easier to figure out the path forward excluding these from human contact on a reasonable timeline compared to augmenting or modifying human systems to resilience against PFAS contact. E.g., check out the EPA list [1] on known human effects. Our bodies really, really don't like these chemicals.
"Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women;
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes;
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers;
Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response;
Interference with the body’s natural hormones;
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity;"
Probably the best thing you can do for PFAs is donate blood a couple times a year and eat well and exercise to boost your personal health and immune system in particular
Because they are amazing in so many ways, and most western countries work with blacklists for chemicals. We ban them when there is enough evidence that show how bad they are. Sometimes not even then.
126 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] thread“Companies told the FDA that it could take up to 18 months to completely exhaust the market supply of these products following their final date of sale.”
"The FDA's announcement marks the completion of a voluntary phase-out of the materials by U.S. food packaging manufacturers."
[0] Like this: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2...
That's right folks, come on down, get some for yourselves! No one can beat that secret recipe flavor we've been cooking for over 9 yards and 18 minutes. Been a family secret for over 10 and a half generations folks! We promise you, no one can beat that original flavor folks!
I would understand using fluorinated compounds in rare stuff, like medical instruments. But that shits even in paper straws.
Teflon should have never, ever ever have been released for use in pans. The documentation on it is 100% correct, it is completely inert, completely safe, completely OK... as long as it doesn't exceed a specific temperature.
Once that temperature is breached, the coating changes chemically. It off-gasses (and, for example, killing any canary near the kitchen). The teflon coating is no longer safe, that same chemical change has modified its chemical structure. And at that point, cooking on it means your food is now laden with those chemicals, and any flake of teflon you ingest is dangerous as well.
This is why using teflon in pans is just insane. The approval process presumed that no one would let a pan get too hot. What?! As if no one might get distracted by an emergency with a child, a phone ringing, someone coming to the door, and BAM!, the pan > 500F for a minute, and becomes death.
But conversely, things such as bread makers, and popcorn makers are sensible uses for teflon! They have internal thermostats, and often cannot easily even get to 500F. They won't cause this chemical change, and so are good and safe for this purpose.
Of course, I don't blame you for disliking teflon. I think it was absurd that it was approved for use in normal frying pans.
You can't replace it with anything known to be unsafe. The FDA's process isn't actually that bad, if one can tell in advance it will be unsafe then no bueno. But if it seems like it should be safe in theory and nothing we know currently contradicts that then go for it.
Trans fats is a great example, they occur naturally in food we already eat and look chemically to be perfectly fine. Given the scientific knowledge at the time it would have been impossible to predict in advance that they were harmful to humans.
People say it's blacklist vs whitelist but outside just banning everything new it's hard to get stricter. There's not much an approval from the FDA would do except verify that they did the testing they said they did. This isn't a case of the FDA being like "shoot if only we had seen this sooner we would have never allowed it."
It took us ~60 years to start to realize they are harmful, another ~15 to be certain, and another ~5 to ban them.
I have vague memories of how people were so concerned about deforestation and trash that they pushed to get rid of paper bags and replace them with safer, clean, recyclable plastic, and now we still have deforestation and trash but also now plastic rains from the skies and lodges in the clogs in our arteries and has polluted distant islands where no human has ever touched foot on and created an island sized patch of garbage in the ocean that needs billions of dollars of cleanup to fix.
Oh well, I guess that is "someone else's problem". Yay.
That being said, I would still not advocate for human testing of chemicals and products, not even for death row inmates because there are too many things people would want to test and there is no bottom once we start going down that slide.
However, I would advocate for digital human simulacra that we could test the effects of chemicals on rather than any living creature. I hope that in the near future we could make a virtual human that we can carry out these tests on at many times normal speed so we can solve these things once and for all.
Thanks to the FDA!
I'm a little behind on the times it seems, but how would wax be produced in such industrial quantities? Which kind of wax? There's several, some artificial some not.
Europe produces a ton of chemicals and I seriously doubt they wait 20 years for long term and wide spread studies before putting products out.
For food, pharmacological and cosmetic ingredients, the EFSA requires scientific evaluation concluding no harmful effects in advance. Of course, if later harmful effects are observed authorization can be withdrawn. This is in contrast to e.g. the FDA process where such substances do not have to be demonstrated safe like that beforehand, AFAIK.
https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/chemical-safety_en
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy...
https://www.food-safety.com/articles/9292-eu-poised-to-make-...
Where else do they reside?
I heard thermal printed receipts
Disruptors, forever chemicals that disrupt... seem like a blanket law that anything we touch or breath shouldn't have these might be somethign to look at.
Your argument falls apart because the entire point is that we elect representatives. Those representatives can not do _everything_ themselves.
Even the most basic city government has elected and appointed positions.
Do you elect every single cabinet member into office? How about all the people that work in those offices?
You can also appeal rulemakings. But that creates this crazy system where the executive branch makes the law, and then random interested parties hold up the law in the courts for years. So the executive branch and judicial branch both have their fingers in the pie—the only branch that doesn’t is the one that’s actually supposed to make the law, Congress.
I don’t want every single corporate rule breaking attempt to immediately compete with murders for courtroom time.
Obviously everyone should have the right to use the justice system if they need to, and they do have that right.
Those “rules” are equivalent to laws. The whole point of a written Constitution is to enforce fundamental structural constraints on the government, such as Congress rather than the executive being the one that makes laws.
I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system.
All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.
You and I both know congress won’t be able to do anything, which effectively means a ruling against these would kill all federal regulations.
Someone getting elected is not qualified to make these decisions. They are however, somewhat qualified to represent the will of the people they represent by setting up agencies with missions to address these problems that hires experts to solve them.
Our country has a lot of failures. Executive agencies are not one of them.
The rightful government is the one the Constitution created, not the pretender to the throne we have now.
What??? That sounds like the newly-hired dev who says, "I want to rewrite the entire code base, because this time we'll do it right!" Yeah, sure ....
Why is this relevant? This is like complaining that an alarm feature doesn't exist when it's not clear who would actually do anything if the alarm ever went off.
No system the size of a state is perfect, and heck I don't think what is being proposed here is perfection. I do not want to wait for a very slow-moving-system to decide if, say, an ingredient is a threat to human health.
If you say we should fix this by a constitutional amendment to allow federal agencies to operate the way they are now? Sure! However in the meantime I'm not going to advocate for breaking the current system and extending suffering for people just to follow a documented written centuries ago.
The Boeing MAX second shitshow is on the front page of HN. Both are the direct result of the FAA "trusting" Boeing to self-regulate/inspect etc.
The FRA has let rail freight companies do basically whatever they want. Result? East Palestine, not to mention the railroad industry having free reign to leave trains parked bisecting towns and counties, blocking fire trucks, ambulances, etc.
Deregulation of the mortgage industry? Yeah, that's worked so well...twice now.
Self-driving cars? That's been going so well, with some company's vehicles caught repeatedly violating traffic laws, and one even killed a woman walking across a road.
USDA? The meat processing industries have pushed hard to self-regulate their inspections while we have ever-growing incidents of food contamination...and the number of inspectors has been slashed.
ATF? Doing a fraction of the inspections and enforcement they used to because of staff and budget cuts.
OSHA? Same. Fraction of the inspections they used to.
To then come up with "federal agencies are run amock and need the USSC to reel them in" is a truly wild hot take.
What's actually happening is that these disasters are prompting agencies to put back their regulations and folks like you are pretending that this is some new big-bad-wolf crackdown on the poor poor corporations which are currently all enjoying record profits...
I agree with most of your points until this one. The only question for the Supreme Court is whether the Constitution allows what has become a fourth branch of government that effectively subsumes the other three. Whether that fourth branch is doing a good job or bad job, or could be doing a better job, is besides the point.
Even as a law student reading the case notes in my admin law textbook (https://faculty.westacademic.com/Book/Detail?id=335338), it seemed pretty clear to me that the justifications for the whole scheme were contrived.
In fact, all of the problems you mention are arguably caused by the fact all these important decisions are being made by a court branch of government that isn’t in the Constitution and sits outside the system of checks and balances. The people you can vote on aren’t actually the ones running the country. And the ones running the country are people you can’t vote on.
For example, inspecting airplanes seems like exactly the thing the executive branch should do. But deciding that airline makers should be allowed to self-inspect airplanes? That seems like lawmaking Congress should do. And that change never would’ve gotten through Congress.
Even defenders of the administrative state do not argue that the Supreme Court can simply “reinterpret” the Constitution to allow executive agencies to make law. That’s too intellectually dishonest even for the “living Constitution” folks. Instead, they rely on legal fictions to distinguish administrative rules from laws.
And in some cases, to be fair, that legal fiction suffices. Congress can outlaw harmful drugs and then have the executive make lists of which drugs are harmful. But in many cases, the rules being made by agencies are indistinguishable from laws.
The funny thing is that there’s a couple of agencies that actually respect the distinction between administrative rules and laws, because they date back to the early republic. The USPTO, for example, has all sorts of rules governing the administrative process of getting a patent. But it doesn’t have the power to make or change patent law. It can’t make legislative decisions, such as deciding that patents should be valid for a longer or shorter amount of time. Congress must do that.
This is true of every other agency as well. They can changes rules, not laws and the rules do not supersede the law.
Congress has the ability to make laws about that even after it’s been widely publicized and they haven’t.
Failed state or does Congress understand and trust the FAA will appropriately make changes?
Sure, there's lots of code smell. But the code runs, more or less. Continuing to run the existing hacked version seems preferable to the alternative of giving up and shutting everything down.
A junior engineer comes in, without really grasping the whole problem, and says rewrite it.
That’s what this conservative argument is boiling down to.
“This software is a critical piece of our system. It’s literally the backbone of everything!”
“Don’t care, rewrite it”
One of the great virtues of Anglo culture—one that’s unfortunately been diluted to a great extent in America—is its formalistic, rule following nature. Our tolerance of fundamental departure from the formalism of our Constitution should be a matter of shame, in and of itself.
But the complaint here isn’t merely aesthetic—about “code smell.” The ways in which we have ignored the constitution has changed who runs the country. And that’s bad for the country. No matter who you vote for, the actual running of the country will be done by the same corporate-friendly center-left bureaucracy. That’s not just frustrating to the right, it’s also ultimately frustrating to a large swath of the left. Every four years election promises go into the black hole of the administrative state, where they make at most minor changes in how the country is run.
Except nothing in the highest law in the land requires the OS to be a micro kernel. The nondelegation doctrine [0] arose from a needlessly-cramped (and result-oriented) interpretation of the Constitution's grants of federal power. That interpretation was correctly jettisoned in the New Deal's response to the societal threats posed by the impact of the Great Depression.
Again:
• The vast majority of software users couldn't care less whether the OS is a micro kernel — they just want code that works, with reasonable reliability and efficiency. If it's not unreasonable to describe the existing OS as being a micro kernel, then let's just move on.
• By the same token, the vast majority of citizens don't care how government is structured, they just want responsive, reliable service that doesn't needlessly intrude on their lives and isn't excessively costly. It's not at all unreasonable to say that delegation to agencies is not inconsistent with the Constitution's grants of federal power. So let's just move on and spend our time and energy on actual problems, instead of trying to return to the imagined doctrinal purity of yesteryear.
• When actually changing the "kernel" (the Constitution) is difficult or impossible, as now, then workarounds are needed. Moreover, trying to do a complete rewrite of the running production system (i.e., a constitutional convention, à la 1787) would be reckless.
• The administrative state is not unaccountable — we still have elections (at least for now), and administrative regs do change when administrations do, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nondelegation_doctrine (which has links to selected law-review articles at Penn, Notre Dame, and Stanford).
And that's a bad thing? The administrative state is like code that's been tweaked to try to accommodate a shipload of edge- and corner cases, i.e., what's wanted by different people and interest groups who make their voices heard when things aren't being run to their liking.
I think the only thing at question should be the scope of delegation and there are arguments to be made about that.
IMO this argument is an attempt by small government conservatives to dismantle most/all regulatory oversight and rule making knowing full well that congress cannot meaningfully substitute.
More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
Phthalates are in everything, including most food/beverage packaging, and have a mountain of evidence going back 10+ years showing that they cause reproductive harm. The FDA has all the evidence it needs to regulate them but it’s doing nothing. PFAS had to do a lot of damage before it got to this point, it’s a bit disheartening.
Since if it doesn't get adequate funding and powers, it can't do its job, and then you can argue that it's useless and have a reason to weaken it even further, until you can eventually abolish it, which of course was the goal all along.
Next do dental floss.
"Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; Interference with the body’s natural hormones; Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity;"
[1] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...
2. What do we do about the forever chemicals already stuck in our systems from decades of ingesting this crap?