Bans on Artificial Food Dyes are Unjust

In recent months, artificial food dyes have emerged as a surprisingly hot topic. The FDA’s recent ban on Red No. 3 highlights growing concerns regarding their safety. Following suit, several states are now advocating for further prohibitions on artificial food dyes. Proponents argue that these dyes pose health risks, offer no nutritional benefits, and are merely cosmetic enhancements to our foods and drinks. So, one might ask: why not ban them altogether? It appears to be a case of all gain, no pain.

However, let’s entertain the notion that these concerns are indeed valid; even then, a ban on artificial food dyes may not be the best course of action. The crux of the issue lies in individual rights—the right to make personal choices concerning one’s health. For instance, if the National Confectioners Association is to be believed, these bans could result in higher prices for consumers, making certain products less accessible. They argue that the bans “will make food significantly more expensive for, and significantly less accessible to, people in the states that pass them.” If that’s the case, should we not allow individuals the freedom to opt for riskier, more affordable food choices? If Jane wishes to leave her stable desk job for the more perilous life of a commercial fisherman for a slight pay increase, that is her prerogative. Similarly, individuals should have the autonomy to consume products laden with artificial dyes if it means saving money.

Now, if we consider the argument that banning artificial dyes will not affect prices, and that these additives are solely for aesthetic appeal, the principle of autonomy still stands. Imagine you’re at a car dealership, faced with the choice between a gray and a red car—both priced the same, but the red one lacks certain safety features. If your preference for the red car outweighs the risks, it’s your decision to make. Or consider two pain relievers: one is a gray pill with fewer side effects, while the red pill carries greater risks. If your inclination is to choose the red pill simply because you like the color better, that’s your choice as well. Few would argue that such decisions should be restricted.

The foundation of the right to make health-related decisions lies in the concept of bodily autonomy, often encapsulated in the phrase “your body, your choice.” As you own your body, you have the right to navigate risks however you see fit. Whether it’s undergoing a risky surgery, scaling Mount Everest, or refusing necessary medication, the choice is yours. Think of it this way: if you own a Picasso, you have the right to treat it as you wish, even if that means playing Frisbee with it. The risk lies with you, and thus, it’s inappropriate for others to intervene. In the same vein, while consuming artificial food dyes may be ill-advised, it is ultimately your body taking on that risk, and it would be unjust for others to prevent you from doing so.

Finally, let’s consider the inconsistency in state regulations: substances that are significantly more harmful than artificial food dyes, like cigarettes, remain perfectly legal. This raises eyebrows. It’s akin to banning the act of stubbing your toe while simultaneously legalizing dueling. If we’re unwilling to restrict products that pose greater health hazards than artificial dyes, we should similarly resist the urge to ban the dyes themselves.

Christopher Freiman is a Professor of General Business in the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University.