I expect them to tell people about it, continue studying the matter, and ultimately let people make their own decisions.
Or as an intermediate step: require warning labels or warning signs. If we let companies sell cigarettes with warnings, we should let companies sell donuts and movie popcorn with similar warnings.
The problem with going from no information to full ban is that sometimes (quite often) the health authorities are wrong. Let us make our own decisions about what tiny statistical risks we want to take in exchange for what marginal improvement in cost and/or tastiness some ingredient enables. If everybody agrees it's not worth the cost, the outcome will be the same as a ban. If only some people think it isn't, labels will let those people avoid that risk without inflicting their standards on the rest of us.
Or as an intermediate step: require warning labels or warning signs. If we let companies sell cigarettes with warnings, we should let companies sell donuts and movie popcorn with similar warnings.
The problem with going from no information to full ban is that sometimes (quite often) the health authorities are wrong. Let us make our own decisions about what tiny statistical risks we want to take in exchange for what marginal improvement in cost and/or tastiness some ingredient enables. If everybody agrees it's not worth the cost, the outcome will be the same as a ban. If only some people think it isn't, labels will let those people avoid that risk without inflicting their standards on the rest of us.