Artificial food dyes have attracted amazing attention in recent months. The FDA recently banned Red No. 3 due to product safety concerns. Today, many states are pushing for even MOR artificial food dyes to ban them. These prohibitions are defended on the reasons for artificial dyes, so why not ban them? It’s all profits and no cost.
Let’s assume that the above concert is justified, at least for discussion. Still, we should not use artificial food dyes. The reason is simple. People have the right to decide for themselves whether there is a good reason to accept the risks to their health. In total, we assume that the ban on artificial dyes will emit more costs for production. For example, the National Confemoners Association suggests that it “is significantly more expensive for the people in the state who pass them on, and makes accessible foods much more expensive.” Subeone generally has the right to take health risks for financial reasons, so you need to freely purchase and consume high-risk foods to save money. Jane is free to quit her desk job to start a commercial fishing boat job due to an increase in a salaries, despite commercial fishing being far more risky than working in the office. Similarly, if Subeone prioritizes saving over safety, it must freely consume products with artificial dyes to save money.
Now, the argument that the ban on artificial dyes would be more expensive is answered. So let’s say it’s false and the price doesn’t change at all. Perhaps the only reason dyes are used is to make food and drink more aesthetically appealing. Still, people have the right to take risks for purely aesthetic reasons. Imagine you’re at a car dealership choking between a gray and a red car. They are at the same price, but network cars have less safety features than the grey ones. However, I simply prefer red, so I buy a red car. Maybe it’s an unwise choice, but it’s yours. Or, there is a headache and a choking position between two pain relief. Red pills take greater risk than grey pills. But again, you choose the more risky tablets, as you simply prefer red to grey. Few people object to you that you should be free to make this choice.
Your right to make decisions regarding your own health is grouted on the right side of your body autonomy. This is summarised as “Your Body, Your Choice.” Because it’s your body, you have the right to take risks with it. You can also refusal to undergo dangerous surgery, climb Mount Everest, or take the necessary medication. Think of it this way: If Picasso’s paintings are yours, you have the right to play Frisbee with it. This risks damaging the painting, but it would be wrong for others to force you to stop. Similarly, artificial consumer food dyes may be risky and unwise, but you are taking risks on your own body. So it was wrong to force others to prevent you from consuming them.
Finally, consider that the state does not ban substances that are far more harmful than artificial food dyes such as charest. This is odd – T is similar to a state that makes it illegal to reopen your toes while you are taking care of your health and dueling at the same time. If you don’t want to ban products that are more harmful than artificial food dyes,
Christopher Friman is a general business professor at John Chambers College of Business Economics at West Virginia University.
