[brute]

More reasonable than the alternative?

> "whereas the U.S. only bans them if people have already been harmed as a result of consuming said products"

I think those people harmed would disagree.

Also to "scientifically prove" something might not be as easy as it sounds. You may have a couple of studies that find a harmful effect, and then you have some (possibly industry-backed) studies that find no effect at all. You now have a strong hint, but no proof. At best it is "scientifically debated". Think of tobacco industry vs "smoking causes cancer", or oil companies vs "global warming is caused by humans".