That's a poor justification for the current regulatory regime in which ethanol in gas is mandated. If MTBE or TEL then they should be banned. If regular gasoline doesn't have enough octane, it should be up to the market to figure out which octane booster should be used, rather than the government enforcing use of ethanol by decree.
The fact that the current regulatory regime hasn't forced the use of an octane booster that is acutely toxic is more of a case of a broken clock being right twice a day than it being good policy. I would even argue that in this case, the broken clock isn't even "right". As the OP points out, use of ethanol has negative consequences as well, and the fact that its use is mandated basically gets rid of any incentive to come up with a better octane booster.
Ok, but one broken clock is easier to manage than a dozen broken clocks that are also potentially malevolent. At least all cars are tuned for the same type of fuel, and it would theoretically be easier to migrate all infrastructure from one formula to another as we did with lead.
How would auto manufacturers manage their cars' fuel systems if every station could potentially have a different octane booster? How do all those cars switch over to an entirely different formula when a bunch of those octane boosters are found to have issues?
Personally, I think the industry needs an R&D consortium to look into better technologies that all shareholders can use. Federal input and regulation, but the companies are free to work together to find better solutions for the environment and our health.
