Individual companies have no interest in determining chemical hazzards because there would be less liability. This would create a market for a company whose only business is determining chemical hazzards. I worked for a large company that went to the EPA to have certain chemicals deemed hazardous so they could be the first one to put "BPA Free type lables " on a new product line and be the first to market with it.

I took that from the Ayn Rand Lexicon. I realized I left off credit after I had time to edit.

Clearly we need to see what Ayn said on this. Statism—in fact and in principle—is nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own country’s economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.

foreign

To protect the citizenry against the taking of their liberty, would be a better description.

Somehow somebody needs to make decisions. How would it be done without some elected officials?

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Let's come back to this later.

Maybe they didn't know the item was dangerous or imposed a threat. Who would decide that? Edit1 How would the public know if an item imposed a threat?

Would there be elected officials?

What would be the purpose of the military?

Should a company be free to dump dangerous chemical into waterways thereby killing thousands?