I'm not, I think folks are generally passing over the term artificial here. I am aware there is some sources of toxins that occur naturally and really aren't avoidable in any reasonable manner.
However, there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk because it can be mitigated reasonably. There's no reason you have to have lead in toothpaste, for example. We know it can be manufactured lead free and work just as well.
We do this through out the food chain and with manufactured goods and even when science changes and clearly suggests that we need to lower exposure levels of a previously allowable amount of a toxin industry fights tooth and nail. It becomes political rather than a strictly health and scientific assessment.
Yeah, you're on the right track now. What you need to do next is provide evidence for your arguments:
> there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk
Like what? What are the harms that are caused by the too high level of risk?
> it can be mitigated reasonably
Can they? What would the cost to introduce the mitigations be? Are the harms solved worth the increased costs?
These are interesting questions and I 100% believe that there are good changes to be made here. But, a study showing that current products are already below a set risk threshold is not evidence that the risk threshold is too high. That requires a different kind of study & evidence.
However, there is a ton of exposure that constitutes inappropriate risk because it can be mitigated reasonably. There's no reason you have to have lead in toothpaste, for example. We know it can be manufactured lead free and work just as well.
We do this through out the food chain and with manufactured goods and even when science changes and clearly suggests that we need to lower exposure levels of a previously allowable amount of a toxin industry fights tooth and nail. It becomes political rather than a strictly health and scientific assessment.