3 ms·

> Still, upon banning red dye No. 3 from cosmetics in 1990, the FDA downplayed its dangers, noting that the risk of developing cancer from the dye appeared to b

> Still, upon banning red dye No. 3 from cosmetics in 1990, the FDA downplayed its dangers, noting that the risk of developing cancer from the dye appeared to be less than 1 in 100,000—small compared to the risk of natural disasters (70 in 100,000) or the risk of a train or plane crash (6 in 100,000). Representatives of the food industry had similar messages, with one industry study reportedly saying a person would have to eat 724,000 cans of fruit cocktail a year for 70 years to ingest an equivalent amount of red dye No. 3 as the rats fed the high 4 percent diet dose. This feels like maybe another example of expending a lot of political energy on something that will have no impact, while almost certainly expending a lot less energy on more important matters.

zamfi 3y ago
Hmm. Would you say the same thing about train or plane crashes, areas that are heavily regulated? Or is the line somewhere between 1 in 100,000 and 6 in 100,000? California has 40 million people. With something as ubiquitous as food dye, that would be 2400 people developing cancer. Preventing that doesn’t strike me as a “no impact” move. If we can avoid these things without substantial human cost on the balance (do more people die harvesting beets than producing Red #5?), why would we not?
- karaterobot 3y ago
  Planes and trains are already highly regulated, likely the reason we use them as an example of something you have an absurdly low chance of being killed by. The fact that the risk from this red dye is only a fraction of even those small numbers might indicate it should be of commensurately lower priority. For context, about 1 in 54,000 people will die of a wasp or hornet attack, making that cause twice as risky as this red dye. What I'm saying is, it does not sound like this is a big deal to me.
  - zamfi 3y ago
    > For context, about 1 in 54,000 people will die of a wasp or hornet attack, making that cause twice as risky as this red dye Yes, and we test people for allergy to these attacks, and often those people carry interventions like EpiPens, etc.—this risk is high enough that we do something about it, no? People clear nests near their homes, etc. Why not do something about red dye? I agree that it's unlikely to affect many people. At a population level, we often take action to further reduce low-risk events because the aggregate benefit is high (2400 cancers prevented) and the cost is low (a few companies spend a few bucks to replace a barely-toxic red dye with a non-toxic one). One reason we do this is that the same trade-off at the individual level is comparatively expensive and wasteful, as the benefits only accrue (and the costs may only be low) if you can aggregate them over a large enough sample size. Consider another example: most people are not affected by vehicle accidents, but the risk is still there and pretty high. At the individual level, there is very little you can do besides "not drive" and "live in a pedestrian area". Historically, few car manufacturers included safety features before they were mandated, because they increased cost and consumers did not perceive the risk as high enough to be worth it. Regulation that mandates these safety measures raises the cost floor, but not by as much because now the extra cost is somewhat amortized over the full fleet for sale. Further, some of these safety features primarily benefit people other than the vehicle owners, like backup cameras. How many people are killed by vehicles backing up? Lifetime risk is also about 1 in 100,000. Yet we still mandate this feature in new vehicles because the cost is comparatively low. There are plenty of these kinds of trade-offs that regulators make at a population level that would not necessarily make sense at an individual level. The individual impact is quite low. But the combined aggregate effect is probably quite large.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  Just guesstimating but compare that in California 3500-4000 people a year die in auto accidents. Telling big foodco to stop putting one type of red dye in their crap to save 2400 people a year seems like an easy win in comparison. So the spicy hot frozen chicken wings are a slightly different different shade of red, who cares.
culopatin 3y ago
If we were talking about something that right now makes quality of life better for the a small risk trade off, I get it. We risk our lives on vehicles because we have places to be. But food coloring? Just ban it if there is any doubt, what’s the downside? My gum will be white now?

zamfi 3y ago

Hmm. Would you say the same thing about train or plane crashes, areas that are heavily regulated? Or is the line somewhere between 1 in 100,000 and 6 in 100,000? California has 40 million people. With something as ubiquitous as food dye, that would be 2400 people developing cancer. Preventing that doesn’t strike me as a “no impact” move. If we can avoid these things without substantial human cost on the balance (do more people die harvesting beets than producing Red #5?), why would we not?

karaterobot 3y ago
Planes and trains are already highly regulated, likely the reason we use them as an example of something you have an absurdly low chance of being killed by. The fact that the risk from this red dye is only a fraction of even those small numbers might indicate it should be of commensurately lower priority. For context, about 1 in 54,000 people will die of a wasp or hornet attack, making that cause twice as risky as this red dye. What I'm saying is, it does not sound like this is a big deal to me.
- zamfi 3y ago
  > For context, about 1 in 54,000 people will die of a wasp or hornet attack, making that cause twice as risky as this red dye Yes, and we test people for allergy to these attacks, and often those people carry interventions like EpiPens, etc.—this risk is high enough that we do something about it, no? People clear nests near their homes, etc. Why not do something about red dye? I agree that it's unlikely to affect many people. At a population level, we often take action to further reduce low-risk events because the aggregate benefit is high (2400 cancers prevented) and the cost is low (a few companies spend a few bucks to replace a barely-toxic red dye with a non-toxic one). One reason we do this is that the same trade-off at the individual level is comparatively expensive and wasteful, as the benefits only accrue (and the costs may only be low) if you can aggregate them over a large enough sample size. Consider another example: most people are not affected by vehicle accidents, but the risk is still there and pretty high. At the individual level, there is very little you can do besides "not drive" and "live in a pedestrian area". Historically, few car manufacturers included safety features before they were mandated, because they increased cost and consumers did not perceive the risk as high enough to be worth it. Regulation that mandates these safety measures raises the cost floor, but not by as much because now the extra cost is somewhat amortized over the full fleet for sale. Further, some of these safety features primarily benefit people other than the vehicle owners, like backup cameras. How many people are killed by vehicles backing up? Lifetime risk is also about 1 in 100,000. Yet we still mandate this feature in new vehicles because the cost is comparatively low. There are plenty of these kinds of trade-offs that regulators make at a population level that would not necessarily make sense at an individual level. The individual impact is quite low. But the combined aggregate effect is probably quite large.
Gibbon1 3y ago
Just guesstimating but compare that in California 3500-4000 people a year die in auto accidents. Telling big foodco to stop putting one type of red dye in their crap to save 2400 people a year seems like an easy win in comparison. So the spicy hot frozen chicken wings are a slightly different different shade of red, who cares.

culopatin 3y ago

If we were talking about something that right now makes quality of life better for the a small risk trade off, I get it. We risk our lives on vehicles because we have places to be. But food coloring? Just ban it if there is any doubt, what’s the downside? My gum will be white now?