如果在产品在销售或使用几十年后才发现其有害性，公司应该怎样做？
请永远不要忘记，生产产品的一个主要原因是为了赚钱，有时是为了赚大钱。
Please never forget that one principle reason for producing a product is to make money, sometimes vast amounts of money.
请永远不要忘记，生产产品的一个主要原因是为了赚钱，有时是为了赚大钱。
某些人有一种倾向，为了拥有相当大的和健康的银行账户，把谨慎抛到九霄云外，当事情变得非常臭的时候，他们会做出消失的行为，可能是在他们相当大的船上或游艇上。
这并不意味着他们都是骗子，但有些人是。
你已经被警告了。
Please never forget that one principle reason for producing a product is to make money, sometimes vast amounts of money.
Certain people have a tendency to throw caution to the wind in order to have rather large & healthy bank accounts, & when things become very smelly they do the disappearing act, probably on their rather large boat or yacht.
That does`nt they are all crooks but some are.
You have been warned.
公司必须对每一次对人、动物和环境的损害负责。是的，事故会发生，错误会发生，但公司必须为他们的事故和错误付出代价，就像我们为我们的个人事故和错误付出代价一样。如果有更严格的法律，让企业对健康和环境损害负责，地球现在就不会处于危险之中，人们也不会遭受新的现代社会的疾病。
Companies must have liability for every single damage, on people, animals and environment. Yes accidents happen, mistakes can be made, but companies have to pay for their accidents and mistakes the same way we all pay for our individual accidents and mistakes. If there were stricter laws to make responsible industries for health and environmental damage, the planet would not be in danger now and people would not suffer the new modern society deseases.
正如我们对上帝所做的那样，人是在良好的意义上被创造的，后来却被证明是坏的和邪恶的。
كما فعلنا مع الله، فقد خلق الانسان على فطرة طيبة وتبيّن فيما بعد أنه سيئٌ وشرير.
我认为公司没有意识到这种不利影响，或者出于商业原因，他们被迅速批准使用它们。在这里，如果公司和发明人受到起诉导致其实体的财务终止，他们将不能承担全部责任，或者我们将来将无法开发任何材料！
أفترض أن الشركات لم تكن تعلم بالتأثيرات الضارة أو أنه تم الاستعجال بتصريح استخدامها لأسباب تجارية، فهنا لا يُمكن تحميلها المسؤولية كاملة وإلا فلن يكون باستطاعتنا القيام بتطوير أي مادة في المستقبل إذا ما تمت ملاحقة الشركات و المخترعين بشكل يؤدي إلى إنهاء كيانها ماليا!
这就是为什么covid疫苗有紧急使用授权，让他们免于承担责任的原因......目前，这正是为了在紧急情况下创造新产品而存在。但在烟草或糖的例子中，这些产品并不是为了在紧急情况下拯救生命，所以他们必须对健康损害负责，尽管他们并不知道。这就是你如何让公司在决定只关注自己的利润而忽视对人或环境的潜在损害之前三思而行。
This is the reason covid vaccines have emergency use authorization which gives them liability waiver… This exists currently precisely to enable creating new products in case of emergency. But in the case of Tobacco or sugar to name a few, these are not product made to save lives in an emergency precisely, so they must be hold accountable for the health damage even though they did not know that. This is how you make companies think twice before they decide to only focus on their own profit and ignore any potencial damage to people or the environment.
引用："在这里，他们不能承担全部责任。
生产产品的公司要对其生产的产品质量以及产品对人类和环境的影响负全部责任。
科学研究是在已有知识的基础上规划的。影响的可能性是可以预先确定的。这绝不是往墙上扔泥巴，看它能不能粘住。
Quote " Here they cannot be held fully responsible" Wrong.
Companies producing products are fully responsible for the quality of the product they produce and the effect of their products on humans and the environment.
Scientific research is planned based on pre existing knowledge. The likely hood of impact can be predetermined. It is in no way like throwing mud at a wall to see if it sticks.
调查。如果该公司在销售产品之前就知道或应该知道该产品是有害的，那么，请对他们进行调查。如果不是这样，他们的行为是善意的，那么他们就可以免责。
Investigate. If the company knew or should have know the product to be harmful before selling it, by all means, go after them. If not, they acted in good faith, then they get a pass.
当然，对于我们消费的所有商品来说，赞成短途和本地电路是至关重要的。
看到一个产品的缺点要容易得多，也直接得多。
至少在最初的5到10年里，在它被国际化之前。
il est certainement indispensable de favoriser les circuits courts et locaux pour toutes les marchandises que nous consommons.
C'est beaucoup plus facile et direct de constater le ou les inconvénients d'un produit.
Au moins durant les premiers 5 à 10 ans, avant de l'internationaliser.
补偿每个购买者，并支付与使用该产品有关的任何健康费用。让他们的新一代产品更加开放给社会研究，以重塑信任。健康保险也应该做得更好，如果他们对我们是否吸烟等进行研究，他们也应该花一些钱来研究一些普通商品的安全性。我每个月都要支付400瑞士法郎，而我在将近12年的时间里一次都没有使用过我的保险......这真是浪费钱......
reimburse everyone who bought it and cover any health expenses cost linked to use of the product. Make their new generation of product more open to society to study in order to regein trust. Health insurances should work better too, if they are making studies on us if we smoke and etc, they should also spend some money to research some common goods for safety. I pay 400 CHF every freaking month and I did not use my insurance not even once for almost 12 years... such a waist of money...
我认为我们应该仔细阅读辩论主题，尽量中立、客观地回答这个主题问题。
有些人只是在这里发泄他们的不满，他们通常会引用 "常见的嫌疑人"。
自烟草时代和石棉灾难以来，有许多消费者法律已经发生了变化。 许多公司现在更加严格和谨慎，而不是纯粹因为他们想通过使用危险材料获利。
我们应该像成年人一样讨论这个问题，而不是像那些现实生活经验有限的争吵的孩子一样。 对我来说，我与真正的公司合作，他们试图有所作为，并且非常具有安全意识。 这是在2021年。而不是1970年代。
I think we should read carefully the debate topic and try to answer the topical question as neutrally and objectively.
Some are simply venting their frustrations here and they usually quote the "usual suspects".
There are consumer laws and much have evolved since the Tobacco days and Abestos debacle. Many companies are now more stringent and careful and not purely because they are out to profit by using dangerous materials.
We should discuss this as adults and not as bickering children with limited real life experience. For me, I work with real companies who try to make a difference and be very safety conscious. This is 2021. Not 1970s.
大众汽车确实违反了消费法，这个月法院说他们会放弃这个案子....。我们应该被允许表达我们对 "通常嫌疑人 "的不满，因为即使在2021年，这些公司也被允许对我们和地球做任何他们想做的事情。
well vw did vialate consumption law and this month court say they will drop the case.... We should be allowed to espress our frustration about "usual suspects" because even in 2021 this companies are allowed to do what ever they want to us and the planet
什么都没有改变。腐败的公司只是更好地逃避了法律。我不是说也有体面的公司，但如果你注意到即使是最环保的公司也会污染地球，损害我们的健康。这是一个商业链条，你不能就这样刹车。
Nothing has changed. Corrupt companies just got better evading the laws. I am not saying that there are decent companies too, but if you notice even the most environment protective companies contaminate the planet and damage our health. It is a business chain you cannot brake just like that.
在这种情况下，我们往往只能推断出公司企业主的做法。有一些法律是他们需要遵守的，这些法律保护消费者不被故意伤害。
根据我的经验，许多公司和企业主都不是罪犯，他们没有恶意。那么他们应该遵守法律和后续行动，但消费者不应该立即拿出他们的马刀，发出战争的呼声来杀死他们。很多时候，他们也是受到影响的主要对象。
We can only often deduce what the company business owners do in that scenario. There are laws which they need to adhere to and these laws protect the consumers from being harmed deliberately.
From my experience, many company and business owners are not criminals and they mean no harm. Then they should be following the laws and followups but consumers should not immediately bring out their sabres and make war cries to kill them. Oftentimes, they are the main ones suffering from the fallout too.
他们只是失去了金钱，我们失去了我们的健康或我们的星球......所以不知道你说的他们遭受更多痛苦是什么意思。
they just loose money, we loose our health or our planet... so don't know what you mean about them suffering more
付钱吧。或者至少要支付医疗费用。但至少这些公司正在努力。在一杯热咖啡上，你会看到 "这杯咖啡是热的"，或者在一袋坚果上你会看到 "含有坚果"。有时是消费者的错。香烟会导致死亡。太多的酒精/毒品使用意味着你不应该开车。垃圾食品使人发胖。每个人都知道这一点。但这并不能阻止一些人消费这些产品。但是，如果他们不得不支付自己的医疗保健费用，而不是通过保险，也许他们会停止消费这些危险产品。
Pay up. Or at least pay the health care costs. But at least the companies are trying. On a hot cup of coffee you see "This coffee is hot", or on a bag of nuts you see "contains nuts". Sometimes it's the consumer at fault. Cigarettes kills. Too much alcohol / drugs use means you should not drive. Junk food makes you fat. Everyone knows that. But it does not stop some people consuming these products. But maybe if they had to pay for their own health care, not via insurance, maybe they'd stop consuming these dangerous products.
每个人都知道这些产品是不健康的。你对有些人吃这些东西感到惊讶。奇怪的是，你并不奇怪为什么它们会在商店的货架上闪闪发光，把责任归咎于消费者而不是从生产到销售的链条上。我承认，你的立场对我来说是不可理解的。事实上，如果一个消费者（通常是年轻人）可能不知道，或者可能被一种特殊的冲动所驱使，那么由个人组成的上游产业链，根据精确的利润目标，按照更合理的计划行事，并且拥有财政手段，就不会担心。然而，作为为客户提供服务的机构，它应该为社会福利做出贡献或有义务做出贡献，而不是为特定的经济利益的总和。
Tout le monde sait que ces produits sont malsains. Vous vous étonnez que certains les consomment. Curieusement, vous ne vous étonnez pas de savoir pourquoi ils brillent sur les étals commerçants, rejettant la responsabilité sur le consommateur et non sur la chaîne qui va de la production à la vente. J'avoue que votre position est incompréhensible pour moi. En effet, si un consommateur (souvent jeune) peut ne pas savoir, ou encore être mu par une pulsion particulière, la chaîne en amont qui elle, est composée d'individus qui agissent selon un dessein bien plus raisonné, selon des objectifs précis de gain, et qui en a financièrement les moyens, n'est pas inquiétée. Or sensée être au services des clients, elle se devrait de contribuer ou y être obligée, au bien-être social, plutôt qu'à la somme d'intérêts financiers particuliers.
如果一个人明知某种产品是危险的，却仍然消费它，这意味着该产品是成瘾性的，应该被删除。
If a person consumes a product knowing it is dangerous it means the product is addictive and should be removed.
做出补偿？一个好的开始是不再生产这些有害产品。但是......像往常一样，利润是第一位的。但是这些公司应该被追究责任，因为在大多数情况下，他们完全知道他们的产品会造成伤害。而法律却让他们一次又一次地逃脱。
Make amends? A good start would be by NOT producing these harmful products again. But...profits come first, as usual. But these companies should be held responsible as, in most cases, they knew perfectly well that their products were causing harm. And the law lets them get away again and again.
这是一个可怕的指责，"在大多数情况下，他们知道......"
在许多情况下，他们不知道，或者他们不能知道。 当然，企业是一个追求利润的事业，他们会受到压力而使用其他材料或成分。
不要再泛泛而谈了，当他们只是情绪化，没有事实依据的时候。
外面有很多好人在做买卖。不是每个人都是骗子。
That's a terrible accusation "in most cases, they knew..."
In many cases they did not know or they cannot know. Of course a business is a profit-seeking undertaking, and they will be pressured to use other materials or ingredients.
Stop making general statements when they are just emotional and not based on facts.
Many good people out there making business. Not everyone is a crook.
是的！！！他们知道，而且仍然知道。烟草业让我们相信吸烟无害有多少年了？石棉行业也是如此。滴滴涕的生产商也是如此。微波炉也是如此。智能手机也是如此。石油、天然气和煤炭行业也是如此。你是一个股东，你保护他们？
YES!!! they knew and still do. How many years did the tobacco industry make us believe smoking was harmless? The same goes for the asbestos industry. The same goes for the producers of DDT. The same goes for microwaves. The same goes for smartphones. The same goes for the oil, gas and coal industry. You a shareholder that you protect them???
这简直是痴心妄想。
香烟公司早在1912年就知道与肺癌有关，而且从50年代起就被证实了。
壳牌公司从80年代起就知道温室效应的存在。
同样，像Goretex这样的公司知道他们的产品是危险的（PFAS，"永久 "化学品）。
生产双酚（各种形式）的公司知道它们在塑料中的危险性和对我们身体的影响，但由于政府行动迟缓和太多的公司利益和游说者，它们一直在寻找绕过立法的方法。
在我们的社会和环境中，几乎每一个问题都有企业利益在与科学和常识作斗争。
是时候读点书了，我想。
This is simply delusional.
Cigarette companies knew that there was a lung cancer link back to 1912 and which was proven since the 50s.
Shell has known about the greenhouse effect since the 80s.
Similarly, companies like Goretex KNOW that their product is dangerous(PFAS, “forever” chemicals ).
Companies that make Bisphenol (in its various forms) KNOW the about their dangers in plastics and the effects on our bodies, but keep finding ways around the legislation due to slow moving governments and far too many corporate interests and lobbyists.
In nearly every problem in our society and environment there are corporate interests battling against science and common sense.
Time to read a little methinks..
同样的，老样子......到处都是。任何时候都是利润高于人。而有罪的政治机构则继续视而不见。桌子底下的 "黑手"？
Same, old same...everywhere. Profits before people any time. And the guilty political apparatus continues to look the other way. "Backshish" under the tables???
有些公司是的。 不是每家公司。
Some companies yes. Not every company.
面对如此强烈的指控，你必须有丰富的经验和坚实的证据。
With such strong accusations, you must have a lot of experience and solid proof.
腐败困扰我们的世界已经很长时间了--它已经成为社会的癌症。看看所有所谓的 "贸易 "协议......获利的不是工人而是股东。看看即将举行的世界经济论坛......一个富人的聚会，为富人服务--假装照顾我们的利益......但首先是他们自己的。看看所有被转移到中国的产业......为了更大的利润，而不是为了工人的福祉。廉价劳动力......正如我所说的......利润高于一切。
Corruption is plaguing our world for a very long time - it has become society's cancer. Look at all the so-called 'trade' agreements...it isn't the worker who profits but the shareholders. Look at the upcoming WEF...a jamboree of the rich, for the rich - pretending to look after our interests...but first their own. Look at all the industries that were moved to China...for the sake of bigger profits, not for the sake of the worker's well-being. Cheap labour...as I said...profits before anything else.
你是否只从瑞士商店购买瑞士本地产品，而避开进口外国商品的超市或商店？
我认为你的真实答案与你关于全球化和生产/农业向海外转移的评论相矛盾。
关键是 "平衡"。
Do you only buy Swiss local products from Swiss shops and you avoid supermarkets or shops who import foreign goods?
I think your true answer contradicts your comment about globalisation and moving production/agriculture offshore.
The key is "Balance".
我尽可能地支持本地企业。我不去德国买便宜货，只有一个例外。Niederegger Marzipan。我也不完全在Migros或Coop购物--只要我买得起，只要多花几个钱，我就支持小店。
I try to support local businesses as much as possible. I don't go to Germany to buy cheaper with only one exception: Niederegger Marzipan. And I don't shop exclusively at Migros or Coop - as long as I can afford it and for a few rappen more, I support smaller stores.
加入对话