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.
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.
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.”
Because banning Red 3 is theater, because the only studied harmful effect is specific to rat metabolism in ridiculous doses. It cannot be honestly applied to human biology and diet.
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.
You willing to apply that logic to every unnecessary decoration in your life?
I mean, yeah. Potentially harmful but otherwise useless materials? I try to reduce those whatever possible.
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.
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
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.”
… And become like a dozen knives I have on a block 10 feet away? Okay.
No one is saying that’s not true. Why say that as if someone is saying it’s not true?
Because banning Red 3 is theater, because the only studied harmful effect is specific to rat metabolism in ridiculous doses. It cannot be honestly applied to human biology and diet.
There’s a reason that paint doesn’t have lead in it anymore.