I do not think that it is ironic because the FDA was not established just because antifreeze was a component of the elixir, but rather because a large and unregulated amount of the compound was included. There was no way for consumers to know the concentration and identity of the chemicals in the products they bought and ingested. I believe that this was the main reason the FDA was established. Although antifreeze is toxic, I believe that it would be difficult for the FDA to ban it altogether due to the role it plays in food production. It functions as a preserver, so without it the shelf life of foods would be much less resulting in more waste and less profits for food companies. This would hurt both the producer and consumer, which could be why the FDA allows a level of antifreeze that isn't toxic. 

Although @devdesai raises some good points, from an ethical perspective, I have to disagree. Yes, the presence of antifreeze constitutes as ways of preservation but how ethical is it? There are quite a few ingredients that the FDA approves of at insignificant levels and do not require them to be listed as ingredients on the label. If someone is not aware that something they're consuming contains even small amounts of antifreeze, it is impossible to control the consumption. If the FDA won't ban the ingredient, I think that ethically, there should be transparency and a requirement for it to be listed on the nutrition label along with other incidental additives. 

This actually was a very interesting topic as I can see both sides of the argument and support parts of them equally. I  understand all processed products will have a degree of undesirable components and that the FDA sets standards for what is and isn't acceptable for survival. I would be interested in knowing what kind of research has been done to establish these levels and how accurate they actually are. Also, I do believe manufacturers often get away with such ingredients due to the presentation as "antifreeze" is never listed, rather its complex chemical component may be listed which the general population is unaware what it translates to. So better, more common language in the description of ingredients could help the consumer be better aware of their consumption.

I don’t believe that the antifreeze ingredient is unethical, but rather the lack of awareness is. I did a quick search, and I am shocked to the wide variety of products this ingredient can be found in. The chemical terminology, propylene glycol, is likely what is used on the labels. Although using specific terminology in the ingredients list is necessary, plain English should be there as well. This is where I disagree with the FDA regulations. When you @hodafattel said, “The FDA claims that it’s safe if you don’t eat too much,” what exactly is too much? Pop tarts and iced tea were in my regular diet as a child, and I would assume many others as well. I cannot imagine the amount of toxic ingredients that are present in many foods that we are unaware of.  

I believe the FDA's stance on this is ethical. If their studies have found that X level of antifreeze is safe to consume and there are no discernable effects from consuming products that have it, I would have no objections. There are many examples of ingredients that are suspected of being unsafe yet there has not been clear enough evidence to fully determine so. One example is carrageenan, which is currently banned in EU. However, the FDA has not found any considerable link between carrageenan consumption and its suspected digestion side effects.

I am on board with @Jbarbee and @cm539. While the FDA approving products that include antifreeze is not unethical, the lack of transparency on the inclusion is what I find to be unethical. While the amount of antifreeze in these products, as well as other chemicals, is not enough to be considered toxic following todays regulations, the consumers should know what potentially harmful ingredients are in the products they consume as well as at what point these ingredients would start to cause harm. Much like we have with alcohol, calories, sugar, etc., if we are at a general consensus on how much is harmful and how much is not, it becomes easier for the individual to maintain their health and make the right choices for themselves.

There are very interesting opinions on both sides of the argument. While it has been recognized at general safe by the FDA, I cannot help but think of any long lasting effects when consuming it for a long period of time. There should definitely be some type of warning on the package or labeling making it aware to consumers that there is antifreeze in the product they are buying. This is a similar case to GMOs in which there was outrage over foods that have been genetically modified and people elected to buy organic over the latter. Now on all food packages I see, there is almost always something that reads "GMO" or "free of GMOs." While adding a disclaimer about anti freeze may be excessive, it could possible promote people to take the extra step and dive into research on what they consume in their everyday life.  

The debate between if one product that is considered hazardous vs a certain amount of it is okay to consume has been a long standing  debate between scientist and policy makers. However for this issue, I believe that with proper science and the scientific method, there is a healthy middle ground that can be established. For example with something like anti-freeze, I know that it is widely used in a vast quantity of foods and consumables that may be dangerous to people. However because of the vast scrutiny of the FDA it is able to be studies and controlled to the point where consuming it at a moderate quantity will not harm anyone. To the point that if someone were to ingest a vast quantity of the product that has the chemical in it, I believe that anything beyond moderation is dangerous to the body and along with the ethylene glycol, the food product itself can pose a health risk for the person 

For the time being, regulating shelf life of food through the use of something like antifreeze is a key to production and sales, but likewise will not harm the consumer (unless consumed in ridiculous amounts). Understanding the potential issue at hand, there has been minimal progress by companies and the FDA to develop something similar with less backlash/toxicity to replace antifreeze in the food production. So both sides are quite difficult to dismiss, because it is allowing food to be preserved and stay, but likewise can be harmful long term. We can only imagine how many more products have these "bad side effects" to them based on ingredients, and yet many do not consider them. Unfortunately, these days these effects are not considered highly because either there are worse solutions (financially or health related). Plus, if they were to regulate something like this strictly, I believe there would be PLENTY of ingredients to go through the same process of being questioned. 

Even though this is an interesting opinion, I have to disagree. Allowing a particular substance to exist in our food when it is present in quantities that have been proven to not cause harm should be acceptable. The reason for this is that all substances, even water, when taken in excess can be fatal so it is left to the user to determine and be able to follow a balanced diet and not indulge in promiscuous behaviours. Of course, some substances can be way more toxic than water and this is why it needs to be proven that their presence in food is way less than the quantity required to cause harm. Therefore the probability of someone accidentally reaching the fatal dose would be diminished. The information I might add in food labels is the dose required to reach dangerous levels for particular substances.  

The FDA was not created to enforce dietary restrictions. It was created to help consumers know, understand and catalogue what is in the product they are buying. They also hold the producers of such foods and drugs accountable to a certain degree of safety and efficacy. I am certain that the FDA has done a lot of cytotoxicity testing on the concentration of antifreeze in products to allow it to be used safely. If the FDA were to ban any food or drug containing harmful material, then almonds should be removed from stores since they have cyanide in them. I don't thinks it is unethical for FDA to not strongly enforce the amount of antifreeze in a product. 

A different question I had concerning ethics and I will post here, is how this whole process is checked and maintained objective? Of course, I believe that they are trying to do what is best but it is good to know the mechanisms that they use to achieve transparency. If this was communicated, then many sceptics might be persuaded especially during the COVID time. Since we are talking about multi-billion industries, how is it ensured that the FDA regulations, committees and protocols are upheld in all cases and that no one receives special treatment? 

@alextzalav I think this is a really interesting point! In my ethics class we spoke about why some people are skeptical of the vaccine and they used some figures that I have attached below. When it comes to clinical trials, the trials that are funded for profit get confirming results about 70% of the time, whereas non-profit study see confirmed findings less than 20% of the time. Now this could be just because the studies for profit do extensive research before funding a project, however, it does give some people room to doubt the trials that are being funded for money (in general not just for COVID). The other figure they presented was Moderna stock prices; their stock value went up 2333% over the course of 3 years (from 12/7/2018 to 9/21/2021). As this directly relates to the making of the COVID vaccine, it also makes some people question if the money played a role. As you said before, these multi-billion industries are making an incredible amount of money, therefore it is extremely important that the FDA remain objective and uninvolved in the monetary value of these companies to look out for the well-fare of the people in this country. 

I agree that FDA can't regulate dosage size of less toxic material such as antifreeze. But I think as a consumer, I would like to know what are the studies that were done to figure out safe level and what is my limit of consumption until it harms. Yes it will be impossible to control how much people consume of something. But having access to data will at least allow conscious consumers to make right decisions.