[Gormo]

Well, first, not everyone is a Millian utilitiarian who evaluates ethics in relation only to abstract aggregations of people. I'm all for helping actual, real-life individuals to have greater means to provide for their safety, but less inclined toward programs aimed to optimize statistical metrics applicable to a vast aggregation of mostly unrelated people without accounting for variation in interests, values, and choices among the actual individuals they aggregate.

Secondly, how do you know a measure like this even does provide for a "safer population" in that aggregated sense? What if it successfully prevents a few extreme allergic reactions on the part of the small handful of people that both have severe allergies and refuse to take responsibility for exercising care in their own consumption choices, but does so at the cost of making food overall less available and more expensive, such that a far greater number of people, especially the poor and marginal, begin to experience malnutrition?