> and basically treat all chemicals as safe unless proven otherwise.
Shouldn't that be always the case? 'Chemicals' permutations are countless. You and I are a bag of "chemicals", and most of them, even if naturally occurring, are harmful depending on dosage.
There's a difference of degree and a difference of kind.
In Europe, there are standards and tests that are performed before something is deemed to be "safe" enough to be sold to the public. Look at the supplements industry in Europe for instance where there is a standard of proof to be met and contrast to the supplements industry in the USA where anything goes [5].
It is not a coincidence that the contaminated supply of valsartan was discovered in Europe [1].
In the US there are - usually- no standards and for the vast majority of consumables, no tests done. Even for highly sensitive chemicals (e.g. marketed to the baby market), the FDA is visibly in the pockets of big corporations and - when forced to act - is moving at a snail's pace. It is depressing to see the FDA capitulating to the lobbyists [2] until the mountain of evidence grows to the point where it commands attention. Even then, it can be ignored [3] [4].
"Europe has banned many phthalates from use in plastics that come into contact with fatty foods, including baby food, but the FDA allows the use of many phthalates in such materials and classifies them as indirect food additives."
Shouldn't that be always the case? 'Chemicals' permutations are countless. You and I are a bag of "chemicals", and most of them, even if naturally occurring, are harmful depending on dosage.