Q:

What fallacy?: Saying Product X doesn't contain suspect chemical exploits people's paranoia

Imagine a corporation that produces a chemical called EatIt that hasn't been thoroughly tested. It is widely known that EatIt is hazardous to humans and the environment, though the government does everything it can to suppress the evidence. For this question/example, let's say EatIt is a known hazard, even though its manufacturer won't admit it.
Some food companies respond by putting the following message on their products: "Does not contain EatIt." Some may even raise the price, figuring people will be willing to pay more for healthy produce.
People who promote EatIt fire back by charging that these food companies are exploiting people's fear and paranoia, further claiming that scientists have given EatIt their seal of approval. What they don't mention is that only a subset of scientists, funded by corporations, have endorsed EatIt; most scientists think EatIt is dangerous.
What kind of fallacy is it when you claim that a product that advertises the fact that it doesn't contain something that might be harmful is an example of exploitation? If it isn't a fallacy at all, then what would you call it?

A:

1  The fallacy of appeal to authority - argumentum ad verecundiam - is involved here. It is an informal or material fallacy, not one of formal logic. The manufacturers of EatIt are appealing to the (supposed) veracity of accredited experts, scientists, to validate their product - to give consumers reliable reassurance (they pretend) that their product is safe. They have not provided any actual evidence - e.g. detailed reports of randomised control trials, the gold standard of clinical trials. 
2 There is also the fallacy of secundum quid where you say something that is true under a qualification but omit to state or imply the qualification. 'Scientists have given EatIt their seal of approval' commits this fallacy because only some scientists (we assume they really are scientists) have given EatIt their seal of approval, not all. 
So I reckon your manufacturers have committed two informal fallacies. 

