> The implication here is that this doesn't have a convincing case behind it?

The explication, I guess, yeah. I was and am explicitly saying that, yes.

  > Then when would you act?

When the prediction that this may become a issue becomes more convincing, somewhere between where it's at now, and climate change, which already has a convincing case that it WILL become a issue (nay, IS one!)

  > maybe proactive caution around big business should be the norm given all the historical abuses

Agreed, proactive caution towards things for which there is a convincing case that it is or may become an issue