The EPA has wide unilateral authority to ban new uses, for which we have little to no usage data for. But if we start executing those uses and get actual usage data that a substance is harmful, the EPA is toothless?
And that's a good thing why exactly?
> You’ll never get a law that says “EPA can ban anything it wants, costs be damned.”
Yet we do, they apparently can only do it based on wild guesses though. Data and informed decisions be damned; well just let them keep making PFAS, and have the citizens pay for the externalities through health insurance premiums, the true blue American way.
> Inhance has been using this same fluorination process for 40 years. The EPA itself has repeatedly told companies doing flourination they’re not covered by PFA orders. The EPA changed its mind based on new science, for probably reasonable reasons. But it’s entirely fair to make it go through the processes in the law for banning a longstanding use, instead of trying to use its authority over new uses to get at the same thing.
Quick, someone tell the tobacco lobby, they're gonna love this! Something something long standing usage something something loss of jobs something something market cap something something, you can't regulate cigarettes!