Even with extensive quotes, I could only provide a glimpse into the full reasoning of the Hanekamp study and paper. Anyone interested in the detailed arguments can get the full text here.

In concluding, Hanekamp argues that the European Commission is ‘infected’ with an over-regulatory zeal, enhanced by the precautionary principle, adding that precaution empowers bureaucracy. To make the point, he quotes John Stuart Mill:

"Nevertheless, when there is not a certainty, but only a danger of mischief, no one but the person himself can judge of the sufficiency of the motive which may prompt him to incur the risk: in this case, therefore, (unless he is a child, or delirious, or in some state of excitement or absorption incompatible with the full use of the reflecting faculty,) he ought, I conceive, to be only warned of the danger; not forcibly prevented from exposing himself to it."

While I agree that there is a certain legislative zeal leading to over-regulation, perhaps more important in this case is the patently visible misuse of the precautionary principle. If correctly applied, the precautionary principle - which in essence is invoked to protect human health - should lead to wide availability of nutrients in super-high doses because that is what we need to protect health in the face of environmental and other stresses. If it leads to restrictions, which is the case in its present implementation, it is being selectively used with the aim of covering bureaucratic 'backsides' rather than providing protection to human health.

Mills, of course, was right when he stressed the responsibility of the individual in taking or avoiding risks. The EU and US legislatures should definitely take account of this and remember that perhaps we are not sheep, to do with as the shepherd pleases.