This article is a fantastic example of an editorial slant that provides zero evidence to back up their position. You can write the exact same article in revers

This article is a fantastic example of an editorial slant that provides zero evidence to back up their position. You can write the exact same article in reverse and have no idea whether the regulations are warranted or not. If you want to write a good article, provide the rationale for the ban and let the people decide whether one side is too lax or the other is too stringent. What's the evidence? Where's the science? I can't logically come to a conclusion based on what you've written. There's a big difference between a ban on 72, 17, and 11 chemicals alone, so why not pit the EU vs the rest of the world? I could write the following article: "EU continues to allow use of banned artificial sweeteners in food products" but that wouldn't give you any information on whether sodium cyclamate is worth banning.