Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

ms.now

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#21

Post by Pragmata »

DangitBobby wrote: post #20
Pragmata wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the free market does make this problem go away. This is simply one of the (few) instances where there is a freer market in the EU that in the US >In the European Union, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, which means greater flexibility in approving active ingredients. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as drugs, which means getting new ingredients approved is an expensive and time-consuming process.…

The flipside of this is that companies put dangerous chemicals into food, cookware, etc. Not convinced things would be better on net.

Except you can check the differences easily.

China doesn't have the same strict regulations, and yet when we compare life expectancy the difference isn't particularly big.

Thought terminating cliches like "Better safe than sorry" simply don't stand up to scrutiny once you actually check the numbers.

No, eating brasilian beef isn't going to kill you, and stopping imports from there is going to do a whole lot more to make you poorer than it will help your health. Take a walk, that will help you a whole lot more, and won't make you poorer.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#23

Post by ericmay »

DangitBobby wrote: post #20
Pragmata wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the free market does make this problem go away. This is simply one of the (few) instances where there is a freer market in the EU that in the US >In the European Union, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, which means greater flexibility in approving active ingredients. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as drugs, which means getting new ingredients approved is an expensive and time-consuming process.…

The flipside of this is that companies put dangerous chemicals into food, cookware, etc. Not convinced things would be better on net.

...but then the other flip side is the government does things that result in contamination, dangerous chemicals in food, cookware, people dying, whatever.

You can't be "not convinced" that things would be better - "we" have a free market and that market produced sunscreen in the first place, without which we would have worse health outcomes. There's nothing to imagine - it happened. Things are better for us.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#24

Post by filterfish »

Pragmata wrote: post #21
DangitBobby wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flipside of this is that companies put dangerous chemicals into food, cookware, etc. Not convinced things would be better on net.

Except you can check the differences easily. China doesn't have the same strict regulations, and yet when we compare life expectancy the difference isn't particularly big. Thought terminating cliches like "Better safe than sorry" simply don't stand up to scrutiny once you actually check the numbers. No, eating brasilian beef isn't going to kill you, and stopping imports from there is going to do a whole lot more to m…

Life expectancy and quality of life are very different things.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#25

Post by hinata08 »

Pragmata wrote: post #19
isoprophlex wrote: post #3

Can't the free market just make this problem go away?

Seems like the free market does make this problem go away. This is simply one of the (few) instances where there is a freer market in the EU that in the US >In the European Union, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, which means greater flexibility in approving active ingredients. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as drugs, which means getting new ingredients approved is an expensive and time-consuming process.…

calling the EU a free market that makes problems go away to draft macro economic conclusions from sunscreens is a particularly shallow analysis

Free Market advocates already did that move after walking in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities, at times they were more qualified in partisan politics than proficient in Chinese. We had been hearing their absolute "facts" and only alternative theory for a full century afterwards

I guess it's better to quickly correct that Europe isn't a lawless free market and a huge corpus of regulations still exists, even if the specific problem to approve new sunscreens is a different process in here

regulation and economy can be discussed, but EU isn't an example of free market. Sunscreens are still heavily regulated like everything else. FDA and all their processes aren't perfect, but they do a good job overall

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#26

Post by lazide »

Pragmata wrote: post #21
DangitBobby wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flipside of this is that companies put dangerous chemicals into food, cookware, etc. Not convinced things would be better on net.

Except you can check the differences easily. China doesn't have the same strict regulations, and yet when we compare life expectancy the difference isn't particularly big. Thought terminating cliches like "Better safe than sorry" simply don't stand up to scrutiny once you actually check the numbers. No, eating brasilian beef isn't going to kill you, and stopping imports from there is going to do a whole lot more to m…

Lol.

There are so many confounding variables and long-delay influences, it’s nearly impossible to compare.

Prior generation Chinese tended to eat much less than any generation Americans, which has a proven positive effect on longevity.

Older generation Chinese also tended to (might still?) smoke like chimneys, which has a proven negative effect on longevity.

Older generation Chinese also lived through some crazy ‘population bottleneck’ events like the Great Leap Forward, which can cause very odd one time and unpredictable long term effects on longevity.

China started and enforced their one child policy early on, which has very weird population distribution effects, which will also have weird influences on longevity for everyone (due to excess or lacking societal support, etc).

They have also (relatively recently) been exposed to a wide variety of industrial chemicals, artificial fertilizers and pollutants.

Americans have had rapidly shifting food sources, pervasive but changing exposure to pesticides and artificial fertilizers, a massive shift from rural to urban to sedentary knowledge work, and widely shifting stress factors across a wide variety of areas. And a rather unique ability to spend massive amounts of time in commutes and automobiles.

This is also offset in time; and quantitatively different than Chinese have experienced.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#27

Post by delusional »

vrganj wrote: post #16

> A peer-approval system would work both ways. Europe would also take into account FDA decisions This doesn't seem like a given at all. Just because the FDA accepts EMA approvals wouldn't mean the EMA would accept FDA ones and as a European, I wouldn't want it to. I have a lot more trust in the EMA than the FDA.

Peer approval schemes are usually implemented as trade efficiency measures. A one sided peer approval would make it easier to import, while not making it easier to export, causing a delta trade deficit.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#28

Post by Pragmata »

hinata08 wrote: post #25
Pragmata wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the free market does make this problem go away. This is simply one of the (few) instances where there is a freer market in the EU that in the US >In the European Union, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, which means greater flexibility in approving active ingredients. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as drugs, which means getting new ingredients approved is an expensive and time-consuming process.…

calling the EU a free market that makes problems go away to draft macro economic conclusions from sunscreens is a particularly shallow analysis Free Market advocates already did that move after walking in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities, at times they were more qualified in partisan politics than proficient in Chinese. We had been hearing their absolute "facts" and only alternative theory for a full century afterw…

>calling the EU a free market that makes problems go away to draft macro economic conclusions from sunscreens is a particularly shallow analysis

I didn't say it was a free market. i said it was a freer market in this particular instance, as shown by this article.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#29

Post by virgil_disgr4ce »

Pragmata wrote: post #21
DangitBobby wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flipside of this is that companies put dangerous chemicals into food, cookware, etc. Not convinced things would be better on net.

Except you can check the differences easily. China doesn't have the same strict regulations, and yet when we compare life expectancy the difference isn't particularly big. Thought terminating cliches like "Better safe than sorry" simply don't stand up to scrutiny once you actually check the numbers. No, eating brasilian beef isn't going to kill you, and stopping imports from there is going to do a whole lot more to m…

> Except you can check the differences easily

Huh? No you can't. Without regulation or oversight, companies will simply lie about what's in their product.

The libertarian vision really handwaves the practical reality of "I'll simply do a gas spectrum analysis on every single bite of food I put into my body. Easy!"

> Take a walk, that will help you a whole lot more, and won't make you poorer.

OK, before the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act and Federal Meat Inspection Act, food was frequently adulterated with e.g. formaldehyde in milk, borax in meat, copper salts in canned vegetables, and chalk/plaster in flour or milk.

Before the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, kids candy was dyed with toxic coal-tar. And on top of that was frequently contaminated with arsenic, lead, and mercury.

So please explain to all of us how taking a walk is going to save us from these issues.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#30

Post by [deleted] »

delusional wrote: post #27
vrganj wrote: post #16

> A peer-approval system would work both ways. Europe would also take into account FDA decisions This doesn't seem like a given at all. Just because the FDA accepts EMA approvals wouldn't mean the EMA would accept FDA ones and as a European, I wouldn't want it to. I have a lot more trust in the EMA than the FDA.

Peer approval schemes are usually implemented as trade efficiency measures. A one sided peer approval would make it easier to import, while not making it easier to export, causing a delta trade deficit.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN