It is an overreach for government to impose particular mechanisms to ensure the safety of products, rather than safety standards - and that's even if you accept that there is a justification for government itself for such purposes as imposing safety standards.

Personally, I am far more in favor of a different mechanism(s), that defund to the greatest degree possible monopolist institutions that create vectors for corruption and this kind of totalitarian imposition of commerce allowed to sovereign people. An example would be privately owned testing laboratories that consumers could contract to test products for them on an as needed basis. In the event that some product or other harmed a consumer, a tort action at law would seek damages compensatory and punitive from an outfit that purveyed harmful products. There would be several benefits from this scheme, not the least of which would be the end of such vectors for corruption and collusion with industry by regulatory agencies that could render them immune to tort actions even were malfeasance provable (as the vaccine industry is, for example), or be able to set standards that imposed anti-competitive burdens on competitors, or that enabled intolerable harm to be caused by products that didn't meet a regulatory bar for malignance, or negligence.

All these things are done by regulatory agencies today, all too often. This is why sperm and testosterone levels have declined by 60% or more in the last 50 years, and no one is even informed about it, much less burning castles, lynching perpetrators, or shuttering pollution sources.

Other benefits would include far lower expenses for consumer protection, not least through lower tax compliance costs to taxpayers, greater public scrutiny of commercial products, individuals able to determine at will and relatively low cost and facility whether a product met standards they themselves find acceptable, and that compensation would be delivered to those harmed when found justified in court, rather than to government agencies. Many more benefits to such a private system of regulatory surveillance and enforcement pertain as well.

Government is not necessary for most of the things it is tasked to do presently, and mission creep has long perverted government so badly that government itself is practically the worst vector for harm by every metric measurable, that it was originally intended by it's adopters to prevent.

Thanks!