> The Guardian, which is already at the limits of reliability

Based on what, exactly? Disagreeing with a publication does not make them unreliable. The Guardian's journalism is consistently award-winning and rates highly on credibility. The Guardian's opinion section is openly centre-left, though I suppose Americans would consider this to be some sort of comically ultra-left-wing communist point-of-view given the state of politics in the country.

Simple PFAS regulations have been put in place in Europe[0] and the FDA has access to the same studies and information as the EU bodies. The science has been performed. The lawsuit was to push for regulation because the FDA has been dragging their feet for years[1] and refusing to act.

[0] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/pfas-pollu...

[1] https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-fdas-forever-chemical...

Edit: Also, note that this account was created today and has made 3 comments, 2 of which are taking potshots at The Guardian. This sort of astroturfing has no place on HN.

I don't see any forward looking timelines on the page, is this the right link?

>The Guardian, which is already at the limits of reliability

Not enough right wing denial of reality for your tastes?

[flagged]