Well, to go back to your previous question, the other thing I mentioned in my remarks is that we should focus our attention on what matters most in terms of children, or what the evidence tells us matters most, and that's air pollution and pesticides. When you protect children, you protect everyone else, generally. There's air pollution, pesticides, and consumer products. There's a lot to choose from here. We've done a lot of research saying that's where we need to focus our attention.
But then regarding the general prohibition, it's a very welcome addition to the Hazardous Products Act. But as Lisa mentioned, there's not enough specificity there in terms of how it's going to be useful for situations of chronic toxicity. If you're talking about something that is going to contribute to learning and developmental disabilities, or the latency period for cancer, our ability to know that and to have the evidence to say that certain products are associated with those kinds of long-term health outcomes is going to be very reactive. You're not going to know about health outcomes that could happen five, ten, twenty, or thirty years later and then be able to associate them back to a specific product. There's a real conundrum there.
So that's why we are trying to suggest complementing this notion of a general prohibition with the recommendations Lisa mentioned, so that we go after the chemicals we know now are a problem, saying, first and foremost, let us know about them, and also, phase them out. A further step in the vision and strategy document, First Steps in Lifelong Health, is to require that they be substituted with safer alternatives, as Sweden is doing.