• Carnelian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 month ago

    From reading about it, it’s really a risk/reward call. Red 3 has no nutritional or flavor-enhancing purpose. It’s just a decoration, so why take any risk, however small?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      Because this took a hell of a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money that the FDA could have spent on so many other more important things.

      • Carnelian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’d be curious about what the cost actually is?

        Right so I mean—the cost of research and analysis and the entire process of determining the possible risks is money that simply must be spent either way, even on products that are ultimately deemed suitable for market. That’s the entire purpose of the FDA, to find these things out.

        So we’re really just looking at the costs associated with the ban itself. Such as the labor hours of FDA employees setting it up? Communicating it to people? I agree with your concerns I’m just trying to get a sense of what we actually spent to arrive here

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          I can’t give you numbers, but it’s a federal regulation. A lot of reports have to get written and a lot of research has to be done, especially in the field of federal regulation as a whole, which is so insane that we literally have no idea how many federal laws there are. And then all of that documentation has to be read by other people and approved all the way up the chain. So we are talking a lot of people’s time and effort (which translates into taxpayer money) that could have better been spent on things which are causing active harm.