Comment by cogman10

3 days ago

Seems more like a problem with uneven application of bans.

Red dye 3 might cause cancer (maybe) but it's admittedly such a weak effect that studies aren't finding a link in humans.

Meanwhile, there are carcinogenic things like alcohol which anyone can buy (over 21).

Heck, we can't even mandate that alcohol must contain B12, which would absolutely save lives and prevent some of the serious injuries of alcoholism.

But we can ban this dye that may or may not in some very small percentage of people cause cancer.

But red dye has little to no value to consumers and there are equally viable alternatives. No one is going to start bootlegging red dye 3 if it is banned. Alcohol has huge value and is basically impossible to ban.

What does B12 in alcohol do?

  • But have those dye alternatives been proven safe assuming an equally rigour test of "well, this might cause cancer but we can't actually prove it"?

  • If you are asking what would putting B12 (or B1) in alcohol do: prevent serious irreversible deficiencies that are not only horrible for the person themselves, but people as a whole, one way or another.

    Call it risk reduction.

Well, we did TRY banning alcohol, but it didn't go that well. We do at least generally attempt to prevent children from consuming alcohol, though.

Should we ban alcohol? I think people should stop drinking it, but in general I don't think the sale of things that may be harmful in some ways should be entirely prohibited, it would just be good if we minimized the amount of potentially harmful ingredients in our general food supply. e.g. if someone wanted to buy/sell Red Dye No. 3 on its own I don't think that would be a big concern.

Both alcohol and tobacco are regulated by the ATF. The FDA would ban cigarettes if they had the authority.

Yeah, B12 AND B1 in alchohol alike. There are lots of people around age 50 who get admitted to social home and have irreversible B1 deficiency, labeled as "alcohol-induced B1 deficiency".