This is essentially the model that we have with the FDA, right? And we have a bunch of problems with that too. I don't think there's a simple solution that just makes all scenarios better/easier/safer/whatever.
Perhaps we do have problems with that model. But are the problems of the "tens of millions of humans have potentially been exposed to this harmful compound and the result seems disastrous" variety? Or are the problems of the "it takes longer than normal" variety?
Because both are "problems". But I know which one I'd rather have as a society.
Sometimes the result actually results in millions of humans getting cancer as a result of inaction.
In most of the world (Canada, EU, Korea, Japan, etc.) sunscreen is regulated as a cosmetic, but in the US the FDA regulates it as an OTC drug. The last time an ingredient was approved for sunscreen use was in 1999, and in other countries there are more active ingredients with better properties than what is currently approved for use in the US.
The problem is that a good deal of the US approved list is basically off limits because they've since been shown to be unhealthy, and what's left on the list has challenging cosmetic properties to the point where people can't be convinced to apply sunscreen every day, because formulations do things like become oily and don't play nice with other cosmetics, or show up as chalky white pigment on any remotely dark skintones. https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/new-sunscreens-for-uva-...
Do the results seem disastrous? https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de... Cancer death rates in the US are going down. The primary one is lung cancer, though, and cigarette usage has been declining... so would love to see more incidence rates broken out into types, too. But it seems at least non-disastrous in death outcomes, so far, unless you have those other numbers handy and are going off of that.
