1. Raises awareness about the potential risks associated with red dye No. 3.
2. Encourages consumers to be more conscious of food coloring additives in their diet. 3. Promotes discussions and debates about food safety regulations.
4. Can prompt manufacturers to seek safer alternatives or conduct more research on the safety of red dye No. 3.
5. May lead to more stringent regulations in the future, ensuring higher food safety standards.
1. Creates confusion among consumers about the safety of red dye No. 3. 2. Potentially limits product availability and variety in California.
3. Could result in higher costs for manufacturers if they need to reformulate their products.
4. Raises questions about the consistency of food safety regulations across different states.
5. May not address other potential food safety concerns related to different food additives.
Note: The inclusion of “head-scratcher” in the initial statement is not a proper con and has not been mentioned in either the pros or cons lists, as it doesn’t provide a clear argument or direct impact on the subject matter.
Red dye No. 3 is deemed low risk, yet its regulation baffles.