I benefit from a very robust set of regulatory controls ensuring that food products are as advertised and generally safe for me to consume?

'generally safe' implies that some small number of folks still suffer from excess iodine due to contamination, manufacturing errors, etc...

It's probably reasonable for 999 999 people to benefit in exchange for 1 person being very unlucky, but that's a different argument that needs to be made.

Whats stopping non-iodine salt from being poisoned by Cadmium or mercury? You can make up imaginary risks for pretty much everything.

I guess the same mechanisms that stop manufactures accidentally adding poison to their product.

Which is nothing? There's a clearly non-zero rate of dangerous contamination in food products, in a market as large as the US, that nobody is able to fully prevent.

Simply never way anything and you'll be safe!

Like I mentioned to the other replier, a probabilistic argument is fine, and I would even agree it's reasonable for 999 999 people to benefit in exchange for 1 person being very unlucky, but that's a different argument that needs to be made.

And nobody, in this post at least, has made that argument, nor has anyone even linked to such.