If these “ingredients” are legitimately bad, then I cannot wrap my head around why corporations would selectively add this exclusively to the US market. It appears, for example, that the US Froot Loops appear brighter in color, but so what? You add it because it looks prettier and yet is ostensibly unhealthy poison? Makes no sense.
Cheaper to make, probably longer shelf life.
It’s probably cheaper and probably some degree addictive to kids who eat the junk.
Remember quite a few of these major food companies are owned by big tobacco companies who have a history of making things that are bad for public health more addictive.
Then you have to look at the big picture of the symbiotic relationship between Big Food Companies and the Health Care and Drug Industries.
Feed the public things that affect their health, they get sick and require healthcare, the healthcare companies prescribe drugs to treat the symptoms on a continuing basis while not fixing the issue.
Think about all the lobbying money these industries have to keep the status quo of a never-ending supply of sick Americans getting fed bad food.
Cheaper to produce would be my guess.
Penny saved is a penny earned.
You bring up a good point. Rush used to fuss at the left for claiming that Big Alcohol or Big Tobacco were intentionally killing their customers. He never said alcohol or tobacco were good for you. He fussed at the left for claiming the companies were trying to kill their customers. Obviously that's bad for business.
Likewise you'd think the same for food producers. Surely they're not intentionally killing off their customers. But the same might not be said for government regulators. There may be food production steps taken to satisfy the bureaucracy that doesn't care about free American citizens. I don't blame soft drink makers for switching from sugar to corn syrup decades ago. I blame the left for "studies" claiming sugar is worse than corn syrup at adding to heart disease and threatening the drink makers if they didn't switch to corn syrup.