1. Come up with a regulation idea

2. do a bunch of studies to validate it

3. go through a pretty complicated, comprehensive, pretty long review process to debate and make it work within the existing regulatory system

4. eventually implement it

5. measure its impact

6. adapt or revoke according to the results

We are at the 4th step. Why would you assume your concerns haven’t been already taken in account in all the previous steps? It’s all public, you can look for the reasoning and justification

Because we say this every time. Paper straws, anyone?

Leading a country through neutral scientific studies is the idea of “modernism”, a pipe dream from the 1960 implemented, for example, by Disney in EPCOT. We don’t live in modernist countries - perhaps post-modernist for some, but secular for 2/3rd of the world.

In Europe, our leaders have been unable to explain why we all know someone who was raped, bombed or killed with a machete in our close social circles. Countless crimes are being done by leaders who say “It is proven by science that these side-effects won’t happen.”

All your scientific studies mean nothing at the moment that legislators want to twist them to reach a solution.