A red dye was recently banned because it was found to be carcinogenic.
That is very oversimplified…
Carcinogenic is not “true/false” it is probabilistic. The EU has a lower standard of evidence required for banning a substance than the US. In the EU if there was any evidence at all of it being carcinogenic in animal studies (whether in realistic quantities over realistic time periods or not) means it will be banned (I’m over-simplifying some here as well). The US standards are different.
You could say that this is a better standard as it is more cautious. I may agree. But you can’t say “it was banned because it was carcinogenic” without a lot of qualifiers.
A red dye was recently banned because it was found to be carcinogenic. How many others are as well but just haven’t been looked at closely enough.
That is very oversimplified…
Carcinogenic is not “true/false” it is probabilistic. The EU has a lower standard of evidence required for banning a substance than the US. In the EU if there was any evidence at all of it being carcinogenic in animal studies (whether in realistic quantities over realistic time periods or not) means it will be banned (I’m over-simplifying some here as well). The US standards are different.
You could say that this is a better standard as it is more cautious. I may agree. But you can’t say “it was banned because it was carcinogenic” without a lot of qualifiers.
There are plenty of qualifiers, thats literally why other countries BAN them.