[In veno, veritas]

Probably a whole different topic, but I would contend that even if there is legitimate concern, is that a good reason to let the government regulate it? I would argue if the government kept out of testing and safety business, other organizations would arise to provide the information (Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for instance).
Now on the other hand, it could be that the government should be involved when a good is addictive. Addictive goods can cause society more harm than good (like heroine). Libertarians suggest the market takes care of the problem, but I disagree.

But I agree with the main point, dictating when and where is horrible. If it's so bad, make 'em illegal. Else, let people control their own property rights to determine if people can smoke there or not.

[Little Pig]

We tried letting corporations police themselves early on, and the resulting chaos and snake oil salesmen prompted the implementation of the FDA to begin with. Too many people are too easily taken in by unproven claims, and the temptation to cut corners is too strong. Who’s to say that companies might not start including stronger substances, or stop quality checking altogether. Without the incentive to follow the rules, too many people would be injured or sickened by bad products. I would suggest that regulating the content of comestibles for dangerous substances or proper quality would fall under protecting the general welfare, something the government is authorized to do.