Artificial food dyes have been garnering a surprising amount of attention over the last few months. The FDA recently banned Red No. 3 due to concerns about the product’s safety. Now a number of states are making a push to prohibit even more artificial food dyes. These bans are defended on the grounds that artificial dyes pose health risks, add nothing of nutritional value, and serve only to make food and drinks more visually appealing. So why not prohibit them? It seems like a ban would be all benefit and no cost.
Let’s assume, at least for the sake of argument, that the above concerns are justified; even so, we shouldn’t ban artificial food dyes. 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 bans on artificial dyes would make the relevant products more expensive. For instance, the National Confectioners Association suggests that they “will make food significantly more expensive for, and significantly less accessible to, people in the states that pass them.” Someone should be free to buy and consume riskier food to save money given that people generally have the right to take health risks for financial reasons. Jane is free to quit her desk job to start work on a commercial fishing vessel for a trivial increase in salary even though commercial fishing is a lot riskier than working from an office. Similarly, someone should be free to consume products with artificial dyes to save money if they prioritize savings over safety.
Now, the claim that the artificial dye bans will make food more expensive is contested. So let’s suppose it’s false and prices won’t change at all. Maybe the only reason why these dyes are used is to make food and drinks more aesthetically appealing. Still, people have the right to take risks for purely aesthetic reasons. Imagine you’re at a car dealership choosing between a gray car and a red car. They’re the same price, but the red car has fewer safety features than the gray one. However, you simply prefer red and so you buy the red car. Maybe that’s an unwise choice, but it’s yours to make. Or suppose you’ve got a headache and you’re choosing between two pain relievers. The red pill carries greater risks than the gray pill. But here again, you simply prefer red to gray, and so you opt for the riskier pill. Few would dispute that you should be free to make this choice.
The right to make decisions regarding your own health is grounded in the right of bodily autonomy, which is sometimes summarized as “your body, your choice.” Since it’s your body, you have the right to take risks with it. You can undergo risky surgeries, climb Mount Everest, or simply refuse to take needed medication. Think of it this way: if the Picasso painting is yours, you have the right to play Frisbee with it. This risks harming the painting, but it would be wrong for others to forcibly stop you. Similarly, maybe consuming artificial food dyes is risky and unwise, but you’re taking the risk with your own body. So, it would be wrong for others to forcibly prevent you from consuming them.
Lastly, consider that the state doesn’t ban substances that are far more harmful than artificial food dyes, such as cigarettes. This is strange—it’s analogous to the state making it illegal to stub your toe to ensure that you’re taking care of your health, while at the same time legalizing dueling. If we’re unwilling to ban products that are more harmful than artificial food dyes, we shouldn’t be willing to ban artificial food dyes either.
Christopher Freiman is a Professor of General Business in the John Chambers College of Business and Economics at West Virginia University.
