Hard disagree; companies should be responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of whether it's "legal". This is "loophole thinking" and it only benefits bad actors.
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?