I think reading on the history of past events can answer this question quite clearly. History has this very odd tendency to repeat itself with striking similari

I think reading on the history of past events can answer this question quite clearly. History has this very odd tendency to repeat itself with striking similarity. This [1] is a reasonable brief on leaded fuel. You can find much more in depth and interesting articles on its history elsewhere. But there are many similarities to the current situation. As early as the 1920s the dangers of leaded fuel were somewhat apparent. Yet the official government position would be to proclaim its safety for many decades. It wasn't until the 1970s that efforts towards a gradual phaseout were implemented and that was more over environmental concerns than it's own dangers. So what happened? Again it's all very similar. There were various reports that were published throughout the decades about the dangers of leaded fuel but these studies, the individuals behind them, and even the journals that published such work were all vigorously attacked. By contrast the industry published large amounts of their own research and strongly incentivized "independent" research supporting the position that leaded fuel was safe. Thus you ended up with 'decades of research proving the safety of leaded fuel.' This, alongside further corporate influence, are what helped drive regulators and other government agencies to fall in line. I'd look at the World Health Organization's IARC report in a different way. A researcher leaked to Monsanto confidential internal drafts of a UN organization's internal deliberations. Think about the implications of that. Whoever leaked that did so precisely in an effort to undermine the final report. Do you think they were otherwise an impartial and objective researcher? Probably not. Yet somehow they made their way onto an IARC panel which makes all effort to control for conflicts of interests, both perceived and real. That sort of influence is exactly how you have things such as the EPA saying glyphosate is perfectly safe at the same time that other countries, such as France, find it necessary to phase out and ultimately completely ban the product. And the worst part here is that as corporations grow larger and become more effective at injecting themselves into positions of influence, government agencies can be expected to become less reliable. For instance this [2] is the former head of the FDA, in a special position created by the last president which he referred to as the 'Czar of Foods'. A Monsanto lawyer and VP known for a legal argument that companies ought be allowed to knowingly add at least a small amount of carcinogenic material into processed foods. That is the person who was the head of food safety in the US for the better part of a decade. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor