10 ms·

You know, if EU countries were genuinely concerned about their beloved citizens coming into contact with damaging chemicals, they could warn them on the evening

You know, if EU countries were genuinely concerned about their beloved citizens coming into contact with damaging chemicals, they could warn them on the evening news or something. Hey there Dear Citizens, these products have been found to cause cancer. Please avoid using them, and tell your friends to avoid them too! Best Regards, Your Benevolent, Caring Overlords Do you think that just might have an effect on the companies producing the toxic crap they force on us? "Those naughty companies haven't stopped putting cancer-causing chemicals in their products. You should still boycott them." If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they were safe.

ownagefool 11y ago
There's probably nothing stopping the individual members from doing something about it and many of them probably will in the form of laws, not news. Sadly, assuming that it's evidenced based, it would be better if it was an EU wide thing.
- Maarten88 11y ago
  Because there is freedom of transportation of goods within the EU, banning a substance in one country does nothing to prevent products containing the substance reaching consumers.
  - nraynaud 11y ago
    It might be forbidden to bar a product altogether, because you would be distorting the competitive landscape. That's the case with GMOs, there are a few temporary bans, but no solid and definitive legislation, because that would be forbidden.
Flimm 11y ago
You mean, in addition to regulations and taxes, right?
m_eiman 11y ago
Or they could, your know, ban the use of the dangerous stuff. That'd be a whole lot more efficient.
- psykovsky 11y ago
  Dangerous stuff like, say, cannabis? That has been efficient.
  - m_eiman 11y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. Let's have a debate about the merits of drug laws here, that seems on topic. Or not.
    - psykovsky 11y ago
      Or maybe let's have a debate on the efficiency of outright banning stuff without regard for other potential applications of said stuff.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
imron 11y ago
Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news, and also have bigger marketing budgets than the companies producing such chemicals. Sure. If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they were safe. No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  > Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news Well yeah, they largely do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? > No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals. Sure, and if they really cared, they could do that even despite the TTIP, or they could reject or re-negotiate the TTIP. There's no way around that, regardless of whether you trust that governments are operating with our best interests at heart.
  - imron 11y ago
    > But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? As privately run corporations, news organizations go where the money is and I trust them even less than I trust the government. The number of ignoble causes they have cooperated on in the recent past leaves them with a very large credibility gap in my mind. And while the government is not perfect, at least I live in a country where lobbying (aka bribery) is no where near as institutionalised and prevalent as you see in the U.S. So while my government might not always have my best interests at heart, they are definitely more concerned and more trustworthy than a news organisation.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Didn't the 911 conspiracy theory video link make you think that maybe it's not worth speaking to silly goose?
      - 11y ago
rrrrob 11y ago
But this would surely open the governments up for lawsuits in the TTIP courts...
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Well they could just reject or renegotiate the TTIP then?
  - kibibu 11y ago
    "just"
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Well, are they looking out for their citizens or not? Isn't that supposed to be their job?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
Bustard 11y ago
Your username is incredibly fitting.

ownagefool 11y ago

There's probably nothing stopping the individual members from doing something about it and many of them probably will in the form of laws, not news. Sadly, assuming that it's evidenced based, it would be better if it was an EU wide thing.

Maarten88 11y ago
Because there is freedom of transportation of goods within the EU, banning a substance in one country does nothing to prevent products containing the substance reaching consumers.
- nraynaud 11y ago
  It might be forbidden to bar a product altogether, because you would be distorting the competitive landscape. That's the case with GMOs, there are a few temporary bans, but no solid and definitive legislation, because that would be forbidden.

Flimm 11y ago

You mean, in addition to regulations and taxes, right?

m_eiman 11y ago

Or they could, your know, ban the use of the dangerous stuff. That'd be a whole lot more efficient.

psykovsky 11y ago
Dangerous stuff like, say, cannabis? That has been efficient.
- m_eiman 11y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what I said. Let's have a debate about the merits of drug laws here, that seems on topic. Or not.
  - psykovsky 11y ago
    Or maybe let's have a debate on the efficiency of outright banning stuff without regard for other potential applications of said stuff.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

imron 11y ago

Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news, and also have bigger marketing budgets than the companies producing such chemicals. Sure. If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they were safe. No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals.

sillygoose 11y ago
> Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news Well yeah, they largely do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? > No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals. Sure, and if they really cared, they could do that even despite the TTIP, or they could reject or re-negotiate the TTIP. There's no way around that, regardless of whether you trust that governments are operating with our best interests at heart.
- imron 11y ago
  > But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? As privately run corporations, news organizations go where the money is and I trust them even less than I trust the government. The number of ignoble causes they have cooperated on in the recent past leaves them with a very large credibility gap in my mind. And while the government is not perfect, at least I live in a country where lobbying (aka bribery) is no where near as institutionalised and prevalent as you see in the U.S. So while my government might not always have my best interests at heart, they are definitely more concerned and more trustworthy than a news organisation.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Didn't the 911 conspiracy theory video link make you think that maybe it's not worth speaking to silly goose?
    - 11y ago

rrrrob 11y ago

But this would surely open the governments up for lawsuits in the TTIP courts...

sillygoose 11y ago
Well they could just reject or renegotiate the TTIP then?
- kibibu 11y ago
  "just"
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Well, are they looking out for their citizens or not? Isn't that supposed to be their job?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

Bustard 11y ago

Your username is incredibly fitting.