That's a moot point. Science isn't about banning dangerous chemicals. It is about providing politicians the facts they need to make an educated decision regarding whether a chemical should be banned or not.

This is simply another another example of a long tradition of standing behind scientists when their findings agree with you, only to shun, ignore and discredit them when their findings are inconvenient. Tobacco, DDT, asbestos, deep sea diving, global warming.

Science rarely cares about what to do. It's only about finding out what is true. If politicians read Haynes's research and concludes that this is an acceptable tradeoff, there's no problem. If they are unaware of Haynes's research and make a decision on incorrect assumptions, that is a problem.