Comment on US appeals court kills ban on plastic containers contaminated with PFAS

ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Not really. The argument came down to the Section 5 definition of “new”, since other arguments were ignored as moot. It was a typical pro business decision that argued on semantics instead of law.

  The court even signaled that they would reject it under Section 6 if EPA were to use it due to the need “to weigh the costs to businesses and the overall economy before shutting down an ongoing manufacturing process”.

  source

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If they have had this process for decades it’s not new though, the information about the harms is new. You could argue the EPA doesn’t have enough power when something is provably toxic but this ruling isn’t surprising, especially when it would create significant case law

    source

    • ApexHunter@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      All you have to do is lie about producing toxic chemicals for as long as possible. Checkmate epa!

      source

      • ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Gigabrain strat 🧠

        source
    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The Section 5 states that it has to be “new chemical substance or significant new uses of a chemical substance”. But since neither “new” or “significant new use” is defined, the court chosen the definition that suited their preferred outcome.

      Inhance asserts that “new” means “having recently come into existence,” or “not previously existing.”

      By contrast, the EPA offers a different definition of “new,” as meaning “not previously known” or “known but a short time although perhaps existing before.”

      All of these definitions are valid. So if the court wanted to avoid creating significant case law, they should have rejected the first argument as not significant and moved to the other arguments. It was a typical decision where the count had an outcome they wanted and then looked for the reasons to justify it instead of looking at the case blindly as they should.

      source