3M knew its chemicals were harmful decades ago, but didn't tell the public
Revelations that 3M knew for decades about the risks of its PFAS “forever chemicals” but kept the information from the public prompt a broader examination of corporate accountability for environmental and health harms. Commenters debate whether current fines and civil settlements are merely a cost of doing business and argue for stronger personal liability for executives, up to and including corporate “death penalties” and criminal charges when concealed risks lead to widespread damage. Others highlight weakened regulators, the complexity of toxicology evidence, and the risk that harsh liability might discourage companies from conducting or disclosing critical safety research.
Regulation and Self-Policing of Corporations
- Many argue EPA-style self-regulation lets firms hide harms; PFAS found globally is cited as evidence of systemic failure.
- Others note US regulators (EPA, OSHA, FDA, ATF, IRS, etc.) have been hollowed out by budget cuts and political choices, making enforcement weak even where rules exist.
- Some want product-safety rules modeled on data-breach laws, with mandatory disclosure and real penalties, but question if such laws work without strong sanctions.
Punishments, Deterrence, and Corporate Personhood
- Strong current: fines are seen as “cost of doing business,” especially without scaling by wealth or income.
- Proposals: “corporate death penalty” (charter revocation, asset seizure, IP forced into public domain), and extreme ideas like capital punishment for executives in egregious, well-documented cases.
- Others push back on death penalty: risk of wrongful convictions, poor deterrence in practice, and moral objections.
Individual vs Corporate Liability
- Many insist on personal criminal and financial liability up the management chain for knowing harm, including potential manslaughter charges.
- Example: health-tech workers reportedly take HIPAA seriously because of personal fines; similar mechanisms are suggested for environmental and privacy law.
- Some worry that punishing corporations alone harms current employees and small shareholders more than past decision-makers.
PFAS Harm, Risk Assessment, and Cancer Trends
- Some see PFAS as a looming “bio-death” threat: persistent in environment, long biological half-lives, bioaccumulation, found even in rainwater.
- Others are skeptical: argue evidence of concrete harm at typical exposure levels is thin; PFAS definitions are inconsistent; organofluorine drugs complicate blanket bans.
- Cancer trends: one side points to rising cancer in younger people; another cites research attributing much of this to aging, lifestyle, urbanization, and better diagnostics rather than a single hidden carcinogen like PFAS.
Political Economy, Incentives, and Systemic Issues
- Citizens United and unrestricted corporate political spending are seen as key obstacles to stronger regulation.
- Some argue capitalism’s incentive structure reliably produces externalized harms unless corporate and investor incentives are radically changed.
- Ideas include holding current investors liable once wrongdoing is known, encouraging transparency, and designing penalties severe enough to alter risk–reward calculations.