> Maybe the trace amounts aren't enough to matter, but the consequences can be dire so they're cautious. Isn't this supposed to be about safety? Safety should

> Maybe the trace amounts aren't enough to matter, but the consequences can be dire so they're cautious. Isn't this supposed to be about safety? Safety should be about safe outcomes, not about maximising the number of warnings. > They only added nuts to the product after you prohibited them from being conservative. And they're being atypically conservative because the "dangerous" label isn't applicable to most of their customers who they then don't have to worry about being deterred. There's nothing atypical about it. They're finding the cheapest way to avoid liability and they genuinely don't care whether that means "being conservative" or poisoning their customers, and it's not going to result in good outcomes for the customers. > Why is the company even involved in the process? They produce a new product and it initially gets a label that says it hasn't been tested, which will rightfully deter customers when most existing products don't have that label. The government performs its testing to check if it's harmful, prioritizing based on which new products are expected to be popular, and once published their results go on the label one way or the other. Presumably you're going to campaign for the massive increase in taxation that would be necessary to enable the government to do testing comparable to what's currently done in any remotely reasonable timeframe? (And some kinds of testing simply can't be done fast - if you want to test for negative after-effects that may take years to show up, there's no way to make that not take years). > As compared to the times when we've prohibited other substances and people all stopped using them immediately? As opposed to market consensus on what was expected. And yeah, frankly, banning substances generally does reduce consumption; not to zero, but to significantly less than without the ban.