My comments are very much aligned with what Kathleen just said.
Labelling, on the one hand, can be an interim step that promotes transparency to pave the way for other policies in the future that will get those substances out of products. It's also an acknowledgement that there will inevitably be exemptions given for essential uses. The consumer should at least know about the hazards in order for them to take the appropriate steps.
I do note, as well, a bit of a danger of a circular argument here. We have a bill that in fact doesn't propose to prohibit chronic health hazards from consumer groups, and therefore can't see its way to labelling them, because we wouldn't want to admit that there are hazards still in goods. I think we need to take a more proactive approach and at least allow consumers to make that choice for themselves. That also acknowledges that some aspects of the population are more vulnerable than others, and may have a particular interest in protecting their health.