Re:US Will Ban Cancer-Linked Red Dye No. 3 in Cereal and Oth...
by apwell23 on Thursday January 16, 2025 @07:30AM
(#42724360)
Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties. Why are you even bringing that irrelevant point here?
Who is being absurd now?
Re:US Will Ban Cancer-Linked Red Dye No. 3 in Cereal and Oth...
by skeaker on Thursday January 16, 2025 @05:15PM
(#42731605)
> Its regulation has nothing to do with its cancer causing properties.
Only because that's so far down on the list of immediate issues it causes.
Re:US Will Ban Cancer-Linked Red Dye No. 3 in Cereal and Oth...
by someothherguyy on Thursday January 16, 2025 @09:47PM
(#42733571)
I am not sure you understood my comment. I wasn't calling anyone absurd, and I was using the fact that it is regulated to reinforce the idea that it is a known toxin.
Re:US Will Ban Cancer-Linked Red Dye No. 3 in Cereal and Oth...
by apwell23 on Saturday January 18, 2025 @11:22AM
(#42749404)
Alcohol being regulated has nothing to do with it being a "known toxin".
Re:US Will Ban Cancer-Linked Red Dye No. 3 in Cereal and Oth...
by someothherguyy on Monday January 20, 2025 @07:34PM
(#42774903)
Yeah, it does.
Everyone knows alcohol is a toxin. It is regulated. You have to be of certain age to buy it. It isn't normally in things you consume daily as a secondary ingredient in doses that would be harmful. You can taste it if it is. If you cannot taste it, you can recognize the effects from drinking it.
The dose makes the poison with any substance, that is a base tenant of toxicology. Not many people are unintentionally poisoning themselves with water.
Food and drug regulations save lives. If you want to argue against them, please at least do so in a manner that doesn't rely on absurdist examples.