I think we need to stop seeing this (and many other things) as a personal choice behaviour. Why is this seen as "leave it to informed choice reflected through the market" and not simply "No, you can't sell that".
Change has to come first as an informed choice. Once a critical, educated mass rejects a harmful product, a consensus to say "you can't sell that" can be sought.
Problem is, as we've seen with oil, unhealthy foods, and now digital technologies, big, rich and influential companies will throw whatever money it takes to undermine research and messaging to disrupt rational choice from taking place. That's very frustrating.
I mean the harmful effects of smartphones are what radiation that we can find no effects in rats ? Or is it social media ? I am more dubious as to that being social media fault (as opposed to "hey we have taken every pub conversation on the planet and made it available to anyone on the planet. Imagine listening to Einstein and Dirac as they walk home from Princeton each day. Oh wait there are a lot more drunk aholes screaming about immigration than Einsteins in the world - who knew"
Smart regulation there simply says "you are not a common carrier, but if you make a choice to show one post to a user and not show another post then ... that makes you a publisher"
Will it destroy business models - yes. But that's not the same as destroying the social value of recording every human to every human
It's mostly the desire to save a few pennies per product that drove plastic.
There are several brands in Europe now that sell water in aluminum cans rather than plastic bottles.
Even drinking water from lead pipes is safe as long as there aren't failures that cause the lead to get carried away by the water. Same with asbestos building materials, etc. Just touching a toxic substance doesn't necessarily poison you.
Life expectancy is a bad measure for two reasons.
1). The major bump in life expectancy of the 20th century is largely due to the number of infants that survive compared to the past.
2). We wouldn't see a decline in life expectancy that's due to exposure in womb until said children were of an age that mattered.
Not to mention pure quality of life issues.
This is terrible logic. If something causes deafness, blindness, or missing toes it will not affect life expectancy.
Additionally, suppose in same year a drug against cancer i.proves life expectancy by 5 years and plastic pollution causes it to go down by 5 years - so you will never find out.
Would you consider underdeveloped male fetuses a harmful consequence?
Because we have some pretty strong evidence that Bisphenols are causing exactly that.