Art -colored dyes have received a surprising amount of attention in recent months. The FDA Recently forbidden red no. 3 Due to worries about the safety of the product. Now a number of states are doing a push Forbid even more plastic paint for the artificial time. These prohibitions are defended on the basis of the fact that artificial dyes provide health risks, add nothing of nutritional value and only serve to make food and drinks more visually attractive. So why not forbid them? It seems that a ban would all be advantage and not costs.
Let us assume, at least because of the argument, that the above concerns are justified; Yet we should not forbid colorants for artificial food. The reason is simple: people have the right to decide for themselves whether they have good reason to accept risks to their own health. Suppose, as some claim that the forbidden on artificial dyes would make the relevant products more expensive. For example, the National Confectioners Association suggests that they “Will make food considerably more expensive for, and considerably less accessible for people in the States who pass them.” Someone must be free to buy and consume more risky food to save money, since people generally have the right to take health risks for financial reasons. Jane is free to stop her desk job to start working on a commercial fishing vessel for a trivial salary increase, although commercial fishing is a lot more risky than working from an office. Similarly, someone has to be free to consume products with artificial dyes to save money if they prioritize savings above safety.
Now the statement that the artificial dye bans make more expensive is disputed. So let’s assume that it is incorrect and the prices do not change at all. Perhaps the only reason is why these dyes are used to make food and drinks aesthetically attractive. Yet people have the right to take risks for purely aesthetic reasons. Imagine being with a car dealer who chooses between a gray car and a red car. They are the same price, but the red car has fewer safety functions than the gray one. However, you simply prefer red and so you buy the red car. Perhaps that is an unprecedented choice, but it is yours to make. Or suppose you have a headache and you choose between two painkillers. The red pill entails greater risks than the gray pill. But here you again prefer red above gray, so you opt for the riskier pill. Few would dispute that you should be free to make this choice.
The right to make decisions about your own health is based on the right of physical autonomy, which is sometimes summarized as ‘your body, your choice’. Because it’s your body, you have the right to take risks with it. You can undergo risky operations, climb Mount Everest or simply refuse to take the required medication. Remember this way: if the Picasso painting is yours, you have the right to play Frisbee with it. This threatens to harm the painting, but it would be wrong for others to keep you violently. Similarly, consuming artificial dyes is perhaps risky and unwise, but you take the risk with your own body. So it would be wrong for others to prevent you from consuming them.
Finally, remember that the State does not prohibit substances that is distant more Harmful than artificial dyes, such as cigarettes. This is strange – it is analogous to the state, making it illegal to stump your toe to ensure that you take care of your health while dying at the same time. If we are not willing to ban products that are more harmful than artificial dyes, we should not be willing to ban artificial dyes.
Christopher Freiman is a professor of General Affairs at the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University.