Great. I’m sure this will be just as effective as California Prop 65 cancer warnings.
> The researchers analyzed concentrations of 11 chemicals placed on the Proposition 65 warning list and monitored by the CDC between 1999 and 2016. They included several types of phthalates, chemicals used to make plastics flexible; chloroform, a toxic byproduct from disinfecting water with chlorine; and toluene, a hazardous substance found in vehicle exhaust.
> They found that the majority of samples had significantly lower concentrations of these chemicals after their listing. But the levels didn’t just decline in California, they fell nationwide. [1]
Unfortunately, the NIH website [2] where the study is hosted is no longer operational. I don't think certain people want to support scientific inquiry. Maybe someone else can find the study text?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-11/study-d...
I read the links to find the proposed mechanism (NIH link is dead btw), and it says that businesses pre-emptively reformulated to avoid having the label, but the LA Times story also says this is a mixed bag, often resulting in a switch to less-tested, possibly unsafe substitutes simply because they weren't on the list.
>>But swapping one chemical for an unlisted substitute has sometimes resulted in its own consequences.
>>For example, when bisphenol A, an ingredient in plastics, was listed in 2013, chemical concentrations in blood and urine samples subsequently fell by 15%. However, that was followed by a 20% rise in bisphenol S — a closely related chemical also linked with reproductive toxicity.
You’re right though that it’s going to take far bigger things like antitrust action and fining companies for making misleading statements about the health consequences and purposes of their products.
Another way this problem can be attacked is by changing the cultural perspective around working at companies like Meta.
There was a time where it was socially acceptable to work at s tobacco company. People would proudly tell their family that they work in marketing for tobacco companies but now? When have you ever heard someone tell you they work for big tobacco?
If the government mandated that social media had to have pictures of neckbeard nests in people’s feeds with warnings that this could happen to you with repeated social media use I bet the people who work at Meta would be a laughing stock in their social circles which would go a long ways to disrupting the pipeline of people willing to destroy our society for a quick buck.
Go to southern Virginia or North Carolina.