Readit NewsLike imagine if the US government gave a warrant to apple and said "Give us all iphone pictures from this area on this date"... they'd presumably say "We won't because we designed it so that we can't."
What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"?
And the reason that is is because there's no affordable, moral way to give 100,000 farmers [nor consumers] a small dose of a product for 20 years before declaring it safe. So the system guesses, and it guesses wrong, often erring against the side of caution in the US (it's actually quite shocking how many pesticides later get revoked after approval).
Europe takes a more "precautionary principle" approach. In those cases of ambiguity (which is most things approved and not), they err to the side of caution.
Notice how this claim here is again shifting the burden to the victims (their research doesn't meet standard X, allegedly). Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
As somebody who's looked in to this a bit, the deeper I dug the more I ultimately moved toward the conclusion (reluctantly) that indeed big corporations are the baddies. I have an instinct to steel-math both sides, but not every issue has two compelling sides to it...
One example of them clearly being the baddies is them paying people to social media astroturf to defend the roundup pesticide online [2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley
2. https://galiherlaw.com/media-manipulation-comes-out-during-m...
Language translation is editorial work, and you may make editorial decisions the rights owner disagrees with, misrepresenting their product without permission.
https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2025-12-03/amazon-stre...
It was the talk of the school. Rumors spread like wildfire. Consensus was that whatever she did, it must have been terrible.
She had driven past a stopped school bus.
If this reaction is acceptable when a person does it, a $1 fine for a company is a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens.
As a not super tech savvy parent I find it impossible to keep my son off screens. He always finds a workaround. So I'm a fan of age verification especially after reading The Anxious Generation, despite all the hate it gets from hacker news.
But it sounds like your wish is to keep your kid off screens in general, which I don't think age verification would accomplish.
I think regulating too hard here would result in black markets and gamblers becoming more vulnerable to bad actors.
These are still data. I'm curious for the contexts that lead other countries to actively ban the substance.
If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety.
So it's clearly poisonous to humans in high doses, I guess the argument is that perhaps the smaller doses exposed to farmers may not lead to sufficient ingestion to cause harm. The parkinsons seems like pretty clear evidence against that.
> If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety.
I don't know why you're trying to defend this with counterfactuals/hypotheticals instead of just googling. Feels like you're bending over backward here.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/