Contradictory "business" attitudes about science point up a serious hole in conventional business thinking. To avoid loss, many companies will insist that science prove their products or processes to be hazardous before they pull them from a market; but then want all the leeway science can allow to approve the launching of a new product. (Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are noted for it, but agencies like the Corps of Engineers have the syndrome too.)
That's classic quantity over quality thinking. "Surely market success can't be wrong." Customers certainly can say whether they like a product, but not be able to say whether it is hazardous to safety or environment or anything else until long afterward, if ever. And if a computer or automobile has a flaw that needs fixing, fewer do-it-yourselfers can do it themselves. The products are too complex, and remediation requires having the tools and knowing exactly what is in it -- if possible.
The same illogic pervades media critics after a product recall, when the shoe is on the other foot. Critics can allege anything, but the culprit company had better come up with facts.
To get past this, we need a social compact that on serious issues, not entertainment, decision makers need to see and accept facts. Usually very few people dealing with a complex issue are in a position to do that. Almost everyone else (including the author most of the time) are not positioned to do so. We never see the scene first hand, nor any raw data from it, so all judgement is based on reports from secondary sources.