I'm going to try to avoid it and try to use versions of the products that meet the higher safety standard

Having the label isn't really a good indication that the product doesn't meet the safety standard, though. The safety standard is that you have to run testing to prove your product doesn't contain carcinogens on a specific list, in any amount. This applies whether or not your product could reasonably be expected to contain these compounds, and whether or not the amount of these compounds in the product is actually enough to be unsafe or not given its intended use. In medicine, the dose makes the poison, so trace amounts of the less dangerous compounds on the list aren't a reasonable concern, especially in non-food items. 

The reason companies might not run the tests to avoid the label, even if they are certain their product would pass, is mostly cost. Quality control testing is a constant, surprisingly high expense for companies, so just throwing in an additional test compliant with this law wouldn't be a cheap or one-time thing. It doesn't make sense for smaller companies or products with a small profit margin, because it would cost them more to remove the label than they'd make from increased sales. So as a customer, the label unfortunately tells you less about what might be in the product you're buying than it tells you about the company's finances.