I'll answer based on what I know—since I wasn't consulted on this matter, I'm not familiar with all the nuances and details. I saw what was in the news, so I did a little research.
I'd begin by saying that many researchers are now advocating the “One Health” approach to take into account everything involving the environment, animals and humans. Ultimately, it's all interconnected. So when we look at certain products, we have to consider the bigger picture.
Of course, changes can sometimes be made because we know a little more about a product and have formed a more negative opinion of it due to its toxicity, but occasionally, we also find that, over time, a given product actually can be used under certain circumstances.
The fact remains that I am a scientific adviser, not a legislative adviser. So I really want to make my point here very clear.
I believe that what's important in all of this is not to lose the public's trust. There still needs to be clarity. If changes are made, the reasons must be clearly stated.
Emergency measures are also being discussed. In my case, I'm familiar with emergency measures—such as the approval of some medications. It's important that these measures be structured so that, ultimately, there is a verifiable and applicable scientific basis for them.