Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can smell detergent scent on my dishes after a wash and rinse, even if I don’t use rinse aid. Maybe my dishwasher’s rinse cycle isn’t very good: but if so I imagine that I’m not alone. I agree with what you’re saying here in terms of the raw findings, but I wonder if as a society we’re approaching this question wrong. Specifically: if I proved that dishwasher detergents contained a toxic chemical (say: arsenic), sh…
I agree, caution still seems justified, whenever we find toxic effects of materials we might contact daily it's worth considering whether the risk that this is a real and present threat is worth the benefits of having those things around. Similar story with Teflon, plastic packaging and utensils, clothing detergents, surface cleaners, micro-beads in face products, cosmetics, talcum powder, deodorant, etc. For this sp…
I think the gist of your response is that you think the standard should be “first prove it’s retained on dishes” before you remove a known harmful ingredient. I will reiterate that I disagree with this: the well-funded industry deploying the toxic ingredient should be responsible for proving that the toxic ingredient is washed clean. I feel this way for three reasons: (1) the industry chose the ingredient and thus should bear the burden of proving it’s safe, (2) the industry has more resources, (3) if this ingredient does prove dangerous, industry might select a new ingredient that is equally dangerous (and hence see point 1.) I don’t feel like your post provided me with much of a reason to change my opinion on this.
As far as MSG goes I’m not sure what that has to do with this issue. Clearly it would have been better if MSG had been well-studied early on, before concerns about it spread widely. This seems like an argument for investing in studies early. But even aside from that: this is not MSG. It’s a toxic ingredient that may or may not evaporate.