I'm not sure I follow exactly the question. It's about labelling products with a supposed carcinogen in there and what that means to the consumer. That's the basic question.
What I am suggesting is that what a label like that would mean to the consumer is quite different from what it means to the scientific community. The consumer would interpret that as a real risk, that using that product has been shown to increase the risk of cancer, which is just not the case. If such a product has been shown to increase the risk of cancer, that product should not be on the market. The fact that there's one component in that product, which in some experiments has caused some kind of cancer at some dose and with some tested animals, doesn't mean that it warrants a carcinogen label on that particular product.
I can give you one other analogy. Every time you drink a cup of coffee or just sniff its aroma you're exposed to over 1,000 different compounds. A number of these, at least six, are carcinogens. We know that coffee itself is not carcinogenic. If it were, this would have become knowledge a long time ago. We have enough epidemiological evidence. You certainly can have a product such a coffee, which contains carcinogens, but the product itself is not carcinogenic because the dose in there is way too small. Furthermore, the effect of those carcinogens is mitigated by all of the other compounds present in the coffee. If you are going to label something as a “carcinogen”, which is a very powerful word, there has to be concrete evidence that it represents a real risk to the public.