• Riskable@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

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

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

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

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 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