This does not affect the commentator’s argument. There is no reason to believe that the commentator’s suggested maximum acceptable levels for each substance do not account for children’s tolerance as well as that of adults.

This weakens the commentator’s argument. It exploits the commentator’s assumption that the risk of cancer does not substantially increase when a safe amount of one problematic chemical is consumed in addition to a safe amount of another problematic chemical.

This does not affect the commentator’s argument, which discusses how chemicals should be regulated, not which chemicals should be regulated. If only some chemicals are covered, the commentator would just argue that acceptable limits should be set instead of complete prohibitions.

This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The commentator does not compare the risk of cancer posed by additives to the potential benefit one derives from consuming them.

This does not affect the commentator’s argument. The existence of alternatives for the additives does not offer insight into how well the commentator’s proposed approach would work for either the additives or the alternatives, especially in contrast to the legislator’s approach.