Erring toward banning suspect chemicals is far less costly than erring toward permitting them

Evidence

If future research exonerates a restricted or banned chemical, it always can be restored to use; but it is much harder—if not impossible—to restore the millions of IQ points lost to the effects of chemicals presumed to be safe. — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 1033

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 1033
• XREF: connects to: The precautionary principle should override demands for exhaustive proof before acting — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 1032; US regulation demands proof of harm before restricting industrial chemicals — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 35; Pre-market chemical safety testing would save more than it costs — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 303

Library Connections

• US regulation demands proof of harm before restricting industrial chemicals #contradicts (0.85) — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 35