• Riskable
    link
    fedilink
    English
    164 hours ago

    Doesn’t really matter since food dye is completely unimportant. Candy, cakes, and other foods will taste exactly the same without Red #3.

    Better to eliminate any potential risks to ourselves and our pets/livestock than keep it around so Big Company can get better sales with their bright red whatever.

    • @Soggy
      link
      English
      -44 hours ago

      You willing to apply that logic to every unnecessary decoration in your life?

      • Pennomi
        link
        English
        103 hours ago

        I mean, yeah. Potentially harmful but otherwise useless materials? I try to reduce those whatever possible.

        • @Soggy
          link
          English
          -33 hours ago

          That painting on the wall could potentially fall and break in a hazardous way. The point is: regulation for its own sake is theater and it’s impossible to account for every conceivable risk. If a product is plausibly harmful under normal usage, sure. If it causes cancer when force-fed to rats in impossible proportions? Leave it be, study further perhaps.

          • @Carnelian
            link
            93 hours ago

            Well, to be fair, the painting ostensively offers a somewhat unique artistic value. There is a reward to go with the risk.

            Red 3 is simply a way to make things red, which we have tons of other ways of doing that don’t have any known risks

            • @Soggy
              link
              English
              124 minutes ago

              That’s a solid argument: we have several ways to achieve the same result and should limit the riskiest because market forces aren’t going to correct for them. Much better than “get rid of this one possibly risky thing because I don’t personally value it.”

          • @AbidanYre
            link
            English
            22 hours ago

            There’s a reason that paint doesn’t have lead in it anymore.