Also, why are you trying to deliver a point without looking up most of the examples I've listed? Do you expect that to be a convincing argument?
Consider also that some pollutants accumulate in the food chain, impacting future generations, for an indefinite time. Such as mercury in seafood.
Do you think the problem will go away over time? Are you OK with having fewer things that you can eat without poisoning yourself? Do you realize we only have so many reservoirs from which calories can come from?
Take care where your rice is grown.
Ultraprocessed foods are already poison and most of us, probably including you, are consuming them regularly. Are you OK with that? And what is this talk about caloric reservoirs? Humans 8000 years ago had far fewer options and they still survived long enough to pass cultural lineages down to us. Most of your "caloric reservoirs" did not exist before the 20th century because the science and industry that created them did not exist.
It's not like we'll be able to just outlaw it and be done with the issue after a few years. So for this specific polluant, it feels right that we should be cautious and look for solutions as quickly as we can.
Ultra processed foods are a problem and likely contributing to the plastic problem. I do what I can to reduce my reliance on both. Yet the solution won't be the few educated among us stopping ourselves. It must be regulated collectively or we'll remain in a prisoners dilemma as the pollutants accumulate.
Primarily, I _am_interested with health outcomes within my and my children's lifespan so that's the sort of time span I'm primarily concerned about. If the comparison to asbestos hold's true then we still have a _long_ time (long enough that any potential deleterious effects will be felt by all currently living and soon to be living members of my family) before any sort of regulatory action will be taken regardless of the health impacts.
> Also, why are you trying to deliver a point without looking up most of the examples I've listed? Do you expect that to be a convincing argument?
Because I'm _not_ your fact-checker. You're other examples may well follow a much quicker time-frame between discovery and strong regulatory action; I don't really care one way or the other, since at least one example shows a course of history which would play out poorly for those of us alive _now_ and exposed to increasing levels of environmental plastics.