So what's curious to me--and this is something I'm trying to understand from the witnesses--is knowing the vast number of chemicals out there that at the bare minimum achieve the definition of “toxic, persistent”--bioaccumulative is another consideration--why does the government have so few chemicals available on a list, or something to prescribe, to stop the actual use of the chemicals in the first place rather than trying to remedy the effects of those chemicals once they hit the environment?
Forgive my naïveté on this. I don't understand why we would allow them in the production, or not prohibit them is probably a more correct way to say it, and then have these extremely complicated, onerous processes for the companies and the government to then go through to try to then pull them back out of the system, if we knew in the first place that they're quite toxic, and harmful, and persistent to human health? Are we going about this the wrong way?