S1110, otherwise known as "The Engine Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act of 2005" is a bill in the U.S. Congress that would require manufacturers of antifreeze to add denatonium benzoate to make it taste bitter.

As it stands now, antifreeze is said to have a "sweet taste", encouraging dogs to lap it up, whereever it can be found dripping out of a leaky radiator. The thing about consuming antifreeze is that causes death. Hence, making it taste bitter would theoretically save the lives of nearly 10,000 dogs a year, and not to forget, the lives of many children too.

To encourage manufacturers in supporting this bill, the bill will provide them indemnity from civil lawsuits so long as they comply with the requirement.

It seems like adding this ingredient, denatonium benzoate, would not add much to the cost and manufacturing process of antifreeze, and it should yield great results. But I'm just wondering why antifreeze manufacturers would be sued at all?

If a dog had happened to drink gasoline, would someone still sue the oil company? If a dog ate chocolate, would someone still sue the chocolate company? Just because someone didn't know it was harmful, doesn't shift responsibility to the manufacturer. Seems like judges should have been tossing out these cases.

But it sounds like this is a good law, with great benefits, and little cost.