As lawmakers around the world weigh bans of 'forever chemicals,” many manufacturers are pushing back, saying there often is no substitute.

  • TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Necessity is the mother of all inventions. When you take away their forever chemicals they will come up with new replacements quickly.

      • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Enough countries use glass instead of plastic containers that I’m sure it isn’t nearly as difficult as they’d make us think

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      I remember the horrible transition period of the terrible “energy saving” lightbulbs back when EU banned incandescent bulbs. Expensive, took minutes to warm up, had terrible colour rendition, filled with mercury and saved barely any energy. It felt like such a moronic decision.

      Now with over 50 LED bulbs all using like a tenth of the energy they used to with lifespans so long I can’t even remember when I last had to replace one, it feels totally worth it. Sometimes someone has to make you suffer before it gets better.

      Though with chemicals in contact with food, hopefully they take it just a bit slower to make sure they are safe first.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Led was obviously on the horizon when those bans were passed, it was bad legislation to ban at that point when fluorescent was the only real option.