Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.
This is the key fact. I had a look at the evidence, and I'm not seeing any harm myself.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
Taking an example of developmental problems, there is this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/
but it doesn't seem to have been replicated, at least in mice:
> I had a look at the evidence
The evidence isn't difficult to search for, and your 30 second "look" at two sources from the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly amount to a meta analysis.
That said, if 3M knew about and covered up known health effects, then take em for all they're worth.
From the perspective of a driver, this fits: i am held responsible for harm i cause even if i was otherwise driving lawfully. But should my car maker be held responsible for the harm their car caused under lawful use?
Toxicity is a wide spectrum so the truth could be somewhere in between. Maybe teflon coated products don't have enough to be toxic, but dumping the chemicals wholesale into the water supply is enough to be toxic. And 3M could have concealed this high-dosage toxicity from regulators. (I'm trying to reconcile "3M scientists have know toxicity to humans" and the fact that these chemicals aren't banned)
They're being sued for selling products they knew to be toxic, without disclosing that information, which is already against the law.