Maybe I can just give a few other examples of wording or terms that are used in other statutes in other countries that would be analogous to our “danger to human health or safety”.
One of the risks of providing any more specificity is the very nature of the general prohibition and the definition of “danger to human health or safety” is to create that safety net to deal with unforeseen hazards, unregulated products, unregulated hazards.
The European Union has what is referred to as a general product safety directive, where they basically say you can only manufacture and sell safe products. We talk about not being able to manufacture, import, advertise, or sell something that poses a danger. The United States in their Consumer Product Safety Act basically defines a “substantial product hazard”.
So there are analogous definitions and terminologies that are used worldwide, and they are for the exact same reasons as what we would have. I think the simple answer would be we don't think it's too broad and it is required to support the general prohibition in the manner that we've explained.