To some degree, it's been argued that the watch-list is kind of like the whole SNAc process of warning, etc. Some in industry are worried about it.
I speak as a former regulatory minister for Manitoba, where I was responsible for several departments. If a list is flagging a substance for which there may be matters of concern that require further investigation—I'm talking primarily not about new substances that require review, but substances that have been in commerce for some time—flagging it on kind of a yellow-light watch-list tells people that more work may be necessary and that it's being watched for evolving science, etc.
If it's used effectively and appropriately, I think it could be a valuable tool. If, however, it just becomes a way of flagging something for which there hasn't yet been a conclusion and that negatively taints it without evidence, that would be a problem.