Okay, you’ve tried denying that the problem exists, you’ve tried to trivialize the problem, and you’ve even argued that the problem causes so harm, so it isn’t a problem. Obviously, this no harm thing begins to have diminishing returns. What’s next?
|Consumer Education Solves the Problem that Doesn’t Exist.
Therefore, there’s no problem
While continuing to deny that there is a problem, argue that if it exists, it benefits the economy, and if consumers really care, they will become educated and avoid it. Therefore, no problem.
Denialists can endorse consumer education because they know individuals are busy and that most won’t pay attention to it. Tobacco is the obvious low-hanging fruit here, but remember, the same approach was taken with food safety until the creation of government agencies vested with inspection and safety duties, and expansion of legal liabilities. Prior to these developments, the argument was that consumers could educate themselves, and only choose brands that they trusted in order to avoid impurities and hazards.