I don't see a problem with new compounds/techniques/technology in general being forced to comprehensively prove it's utility and safety before being put out in the world.
But what counts as "comprehensively"? The whole point here is that 3M got all the regulatory approvals before launching their product, but it turns out it was too little, so we should punish them anyways. If the law isn't comprehensive enough, it should be made comprehensive. We shouldn't be prosecuting people after the fact for complying with all laws at the time, and then it turned out it wasn't comprehensive enough.
In what hypothetical world is there enough corruption/incompetence for regulatory capture to be a problem, yet at the same time there isn't enough corruption/incompetence for arbitrary and retroactive punishments for legal behaviors to be a good idea?
Even putting aside the problem of implementation, you also need to consider the second order effects. Specifically, impact on the development of new technologies. Why would anyone want to commercialize any new technology when it can set them up for unlimited personal liability in the future? Remember, the whole point isn't that just the company has to pay for their damages, it's their shareholders and corporate officers will personally held liable for damages as well. How are you going to get innovations in fusion/ai/superconductor when all of them will be subject to the threat of arbitrary and retroactive punishment in the future? For instance, you create an generative art AI startup today. Presently there aren't any regulations, so you do the bare minimum of due diligence. This seems reasonable, given that it's not really like chatgpt so the chance of AI takeover is low. Three decades down the line generative art AI becomes a hit and millions of artists around the world are unemployed. They lobby the government to prosecute you and your shareholders for putting them out of work, arguing that you "CHOSE not do enough research beforehand to be aware of dangers". Does that seem like a fair risk to subject the founders to? Do you think this is a worthwhile trade-off between innovation and conversation?
You're going to handwave past contaminating literally the entire surface of the planet with some of the most difficult to remediate chemicals we've come up with to date, a multi-decade effort the bulk of which was conducted well after evidence that this shit caused any number of harms began to surface and the best you can come up with is "because capitalism"? If innovation truly isn't possible without these kinds of catastrophic outcomes what the fuck is even the point? Is society so utterly dependent upon the creation and maintenance of a handful of hyper-wealthy individuals that these outcomes should not only be expected but rewarded? Seriously?
