Talk:PFAS cover-up

Relevance?

@AnotherConsumerRightsPerson On the "old vs new" anti-consumer practices, I was told this by @Keith:

I think there's a slight misreading here - 'old' consumer protection issues are absolutely fine for the wiki, it just has to be large-scale and notable. If someone made an article on a major unsafe food additive that the company kept using well after it was proved conclusively to be obviously harmful, that would be fine for the wiki despite it being 'old' consumer protection

It seems like we're still working out what is and isn't within scope for the wiki, especially since there is a large leaning toward technology here. The PFAS issue (and other food related anti-consumer practices) is definitely a large and extensive area in of itself. But perhaps this wiki will grow to more than just technology in the future. Either way, while it could seem like a stretch, I think the many crimes committed by food companies (and monopolies) have enough relevance to stay on the wiki even if they seem a bit out of scope for now. Beanie Bo (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

(Hope replying now doesn’t give you an annoying notification!) Ah, okay, I thought that the ‘what is ‘old’ consumer protection’ says 30 years ago and thought anything before weren’t in scope. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The PFAS stuff is ongoing, and very much in-scope I'd say. very widespread thing that directly affects the consumers who purchase affected products. Keith (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)