Loading
The ideaFDAFDAFDAFDAGRASFDAGRASFDAGRASFDAFDAFDA GRASFDAFDAFDAEUFDAEUEUEUFDAUS Your browser does not support the element. that American children are being poisoned by the food industry, with the blessing of regulators, sounds like classic conspiracy theory. But when that is the stated belief of the man who may soon become America’s secretary of health, it is sensible to ask whether there is something to it. Robert F. Kennedy junior, Donald Trump’s choice for the job, wants to get rid of the entire nutrition division of the Food and Drug Administration, which he has accused of allowing toxic chemicals in foods. On that he may, or may not, have a point. The real story is that nobody knows.Mr Kennedy’s ire has to do with the hands-off way in which the regulates food additives such as artificial flavours, colours and preservatives. It allows food companies themselves to decide whether such chemicals are safe, and whether they want to notify the about them at all. They are not required to list all ingredients on food labels. For example, a chemical concocted in the lab may appear on a pack of biscuits as “flavouring”.Behind this is a loophole in the food-safety law from 1958 that put the in charge of vetting food ingredients. A sensible exemption from full assessment was carved out for things like vinegar and spices, which were put in a category called “generally recognised as safe” (). In the decades that followed, the number of chemicals concocted to make foods crunchier, tastier and longer-lasting shot up—along with waiting times for review by the . Food companies began to sneak some novel ingredients through the loophole, helped by vague rules.To resolve the backlog, the did not get funding to hire more staff. Instead, in 1997, it increased the loophole to the size of the Hoover dam, changing the rules so food companies no longer had to tell the about ingredients they deemed safe.In 2014 the ’s deputy chief in charge of foods, Michael Taylor, admitted the obvious: “We simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals.” According to a tally by the Environmental Working Group, a consumer advocacy group, between 2000 and 2021 the received only ten applications for full safety assessment of new food additives. At the same time, about 750 new chemicals entered the food supply with notices to the .The lax rules have led to greater use of food chemicals in America than elsewhere. The ’s registry has nearly 4,000 substances. Experts estimate that there are also more than 1,000 that the does not know about. By comparison, the food-safety agency has approved about 400 additives. It is also reassessing those approved before 2009, to take into account new data on their safety.America’s food industry maintains that self-regulation is keeping foods safe. Acute toxic reactions to additives are, indeed, rare. But such incidents have shown that some ingredients lack even a basic safety assessment. In 2022 nearly 400 people were taken ill and 133 were hospitalised (some with permanent organ damage) after consuming foods containing a protein called tara flour. The took two years to conclude that publicly available studies of the ingredient showed it was unsafe, an episode that also showed how slowly the wheels of its bureaucracy turn.Health experts worry that some additives may be causing cancer or other chronic diseases. Americans get most of their daily calories from so-called ultra-processed foods that are packed with them. Nearly 9,000 foods sold in America contain Red 3 dye, which is banned in the in food and in cosmetics in America over concerns that it is carcinogenic. Potassium bromate, which plumps up bread, is also banned in the for the same reason but can be found in nearly 600 foods in America. Studies in France, using food labels and information on what people eat, have found links between other common additives and cancer—the sort of data that help regulators decide what to ban when they reassess the safety of previously approved additives.Tired from fruitless lobbying for change at federal level, consumer-safety lobby groups are trying their luck at the state level. A bill they have proposed at New York’s state legislature would require food companies to disclose their safety assessments of chemicals in foods sold there. As a result some could choose to replace certain chemicals with safer ones, says Jensen Jose from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. Big brands would sell these reformulated products nationwide, he says, because it is impractical for them to make different versions.The bill, its proponents argue, is the most important reform to the food chemical review process in decades. If it succeeds, everyone would have access to a complete list of chemicals that are staples of America’s diet—including the .
