Not all progress is good progress. Adding lead to paint was progress at the time. Same with using asbestos for insulation. We’ve since decided that the costs outweigh the benefits there.

Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.

> Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.

That might or might not be wrong, but is certainly a typically European perspective. The U.S. Bill of Rights is full of clauses specifying things like "Congress shall make no law regarding..." freedom of speech, establishments of religion, etc. because of the notion that the government's inability to reliably get it right is indeed a good reason to stop altogether.

I don't disagree, in general. Roundup also fed many people. But there are certainly poor choices evident in the above examples that weren't necessary for the progress to be made, but were just disregarded by an organization operating without guardrails. They deserve the pressure to course correct.