Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com

Concerns Rise Over Food Additives in the U.S. Food Supply

Joseph Shea, a retailer of athletic apparel based in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, voices ongoing anxiety about the food products he consumes. He finds himself questioning the safety and health implications of chemical ingredients with complex names, undisclosed natural or artificial flavors, and the addictive nature of low-cost junk foods that ultimately make him feel unwell.

Shea is among 1,310 participants in a recent poll conducted by the health policy research entity KFF, where many expressed concern over food safety and health care priorities. Despite his perception that the FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of these ingredients, investigations indicate that the agency’s regulatory powers are comparatively weak, especially in contrast to those in Europe. Estimates suggest that at least 950 substances permissible in U.S. foods are banned in Europe, with numerous chemicals linked to health risks appearing in a variety of products available in American grocery stores.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services, has long criticized the dangers posed by food additives, advocating for the cessation of what he describes as “the mass poisoning of American children.” During a confirmation session on March 6, Martin Makary, nominated by former President Trump to lead the FDA, raised alarm about food containing numerous synthetic compounds that do not naturally occur.

“These are chemicals that the industry insists are safe, although a subset raises significant concerns,” Makary remarked. However, the Trump administration’s early efforts to cut FDA staff resulted in the resignation of Jim Jones, the director of the agency’s food safety division, igniting fears among food safety advocates regarding weaker oversight.

Much of the responsibility for evaluating the safety of ingredients and additives appears to rest on the food industry itself. Food manufacturers are not obliged to inform the FDA of their safety assessments, nor are they mandated to disclose all ingredients on product labels.

In stark contrast to the rigorous safety data required from pharmaceutical firms, the FDA’s knowledge of food manufacturers’ research remains scant. “The food industry conducts extensive research that is not accessible to us,” Robert Califf, the former FDA commissioner, stated before his departure. This lack of transparency leads to significantly less stringent oversight of food additives compared to prescription drugs. Califf emphasized the need for concern regarding the chemicals commonly found in our food.

Consumers in the United States invest approximately $1.7 trillion annually in food and beverages, as reported by Circana, a research firm. Yet, numerous food companies maintain a veil of secrecy surrounding the substances they incorporate into their products.

KFF Health News reached out to some of the largest food conglomerates—including The Coca-Cola Company, Conagra Brands, General Mills, and Nestlé—seeking clarity on undisclosed ingredients and chemicals safe for use in the U.S. but banned in Europe; however, there were no responses to these inquiries. Nestlé defended its practices by highlighting compliance with regulatory standards.

In stark contrast, certain chemicals such as titanium dioxide and potassium bromate, whose safety remains hotly debated, are allowed in U.S. foods while being prohibited in Europe. A report commissioned by the FDA released in July 2024 cautioned that companies might overlook potential hazards. The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA indicated that some harmful ingredients may remain undisclosed on product labels, often masked within broad categories like “spices” or “artificial flavors,” as noted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Instances have also been documented where potential allergens, such as dairy and wheat, have not been properly listed, prompting significant food recalls. These lapses have drawn scrutiny from political leaders, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and public health watchdog groups, raising alarm over the effectiveness of current oversight. With ultra-processed foods—now making up roughly 73% of the American food supply—utilizing a wide range of chemical additives, concerns grow regarding their potential addictive properties and contribution to the obesity epidemic, a sentiment shared by figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Kennedy.

According to the KFF poll, a considerable 58% of respondents expressed a desire for stricter regulations regarding chemicals in the food supply under the Trump administration. The Consumer Brands Association contends that the existing regulatory framework is robust and driven by scientific evidence, allowing companies the flexibility to innovate in alignment with consumer demands.

Over a decade ago, Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that approximately 10,000 food additives were authorized for use in the U.S., with safety reviews for around 3,000 of those remaining unexamined by the FDA.

International Regulatory Disparities

The FDA permits the use of titanium dioxide in food products, with over 1,900 items containing this ingredient, predominantly in candies. In 2021, a European Union regulatory panel deemed titanium dioxide unsafe as a food additive, voicing concerns over its potential to harm chromosomes. Similarly, potassium bromate, which is used in baking, is included in over 200 U.S. products yet has been banned in numerous countries, including those in the European Union and California, which will implement its ban starting in 2027.

According to an analysis of FDA and European Commission records, about 950 additional additives appear in U.S. foods but are prohibited within the EU. However, comparisons are complicated due to fundamental differences in the regulatory frameworks of the two regions.

The FDA often allows long periods to elapse without reassessing previously approved substances, even when new research suggests potential safety concerns. For instance, in January, the FDA revoked authorization for Red Dye No. 3, referencing studies from 1987. By contrast, the EU mandates that all additives on the market before January 20, 2009, undergo reevaluation, a practice that is still in progress.

Jones previously noted the FDA’s lack of a statutory requirement for periodic reviews of chemicals approved in the past, emphasizing that the U.S. is lagging behind both European and Canadian standards.

The GRAS Controversy

One of the major historical gaps in the FDA’s food oversight can be traced to legislation from 1958, which mandated safety proof for food additives prior to market approval. However, the introduction of the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) clause allowed many ingredients—including both commonplace and chemical additives—to bypass this requirement.

Over time, this provision has effectively nullified stringent regulatory oversight. The Natural Resources Defense Council described GRAS as a provision that now can be exploited by companies to approve their own ingredients without informing the FDA, suggesting a troubling level of regulatory neglect.

While manufacturers can convene panels of specialists to assess the safety of ingredients, issues of bias are raised since some panelists may be compensated by the companies that commission the reviews. Approximately 3,000 flavoring components have received GRAS status through a panel organized by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, according to the organization’s executive director. However, details regarding the instances in which a flavoring ingredient has not met safety standards remain vague.

Seeking FDA Approval

Companies have a choice to voluntarily inform the FDA of their intent to market a product deemed GRAS, thereby seeking the agency’s tacit approval. Notably, firms can commence marketing without waiting for explicit FDA permission, which has prompted concerns regarding the effectiveness of regulatory safeguards.

In many instances, when potential issues are flagged by the FDA, companies are often encouraged to cease evaluations rather than removing products from the market—a practice criticized by consumer advocates.

Challenges in ensuring food safety were highlighted in a related scenario involving Psyched Wellness, a Canadian firm that initially claimed approval for a product derived from a hallucinogenic mushroom as GRAS. After an FDA review raised concerns about the safety of the ingredient following adverse events linked to similar products, the company faced scrutiny.

Long-term Hazards of Food Ingredients

Critics express growing concern over subtle yet potentially harmful health impacts linked to food ingredients that might emerge over extensive periods. In light of these risks, individuals like Joseph Shea grapple with navigating the complexities and potential dangers present in the modern food landscape.

Reflecting on his experiences, Shea shared his frustrations with the food industry and regulatory systems that fail to prioritize consumer health above corporate interests. “They’re probably poisoning us, and we don’t know,” he lamented, acknowledging the challenges of tracing long-term health effects back to specific ingredients.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom dedicated to detailed journalism that addresses health issues, as part of the larger framework of KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Source
www.cbsnews.com