The issue with health concerns like this is that it's not like it explodes and kills you - there's really no way to say, "It was the molecule on March 13, 2026 that started cancer in your body"
You can't even do that with cigarettes - you can only make a conclusion on cause that's well supported by circumstantial evidence.
And I'm not saying you're arguing against it, but just broadly speaking ... arguing *against* more information - unless the argument is that the information itself is inaccurate - seems particularly anti free-market to me. (Obviously that's why companies fight against the burden of regulation designed to increase market transparencies.)