Humans have an inherent status quo bias and will perceive changing the status quo differently than maintaining the status quo. “Infrastructure” institutions, such as law and medicine, which depend on broad public support and the perception of neutrality, thus cannot be seen as actively seeking to change the status quo. Of course, they must also not be seen as resisting changes to the status quo from non-infrastructure sectors of society. Put differently, stable democracy calls for a well policed distinction between sectors of society that lobby for change, and sectors of society that are expected to neutrally referee, or provide expert guidance, without being agents of change themselves.

Do you have in mind something like what happened with tobacco in the 60s, when the Surgeon General documented negative health impacts publicly and extensively, but ultimately stopped short of recommending any action against it? In my experience, most people see the little label on cigarette packs as grossly inadequate.

Problem with maintaining status quo is that for example someones pay may be the same or can grow a little while economy grows around them, they end up having relatively less and they can afford less. So status quo may squeeze people dry, while they still have things they don't want to loose. And they will loose them maybe not today, but definitely tomorrow.