From the financial squeeze of inflation, withdrawal after withdrawal, and actually getting out the door, going to the grocery store can sometimes seem like an insurmountable task. Adding stress is something else on Vox reader Sommer’s mind. When she’s shopping for food, she wonders to herself: Why do products like candy corn and ranch dressing have different ingredients, additives, and colors?
“How does America allow us to eat certain products that are harmful and banned in other countries?” he asked us. “Don’t you care about us?” That’s the topic of this week’s episode explain to me Visit Vox’s hotline for all your questions.
Some people might dismiss it as “fixed.”Granola moms” Actually a valid concern, said Melanie BeneshVice President of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, an organization that scrutinizes agricultural practices. The effects of many of these chemicals are long-lasting: they accumulate over time after many short exposures. For example, the whitening agent in soups and dairy products contains titanium dioxide in the body and even Damage DNA.
European countries take a much more cautious approach to adding additives to their foods, says Benes. “If there is doubt as to whether a chemical is safe or if there is no data to back up the safety, the EU will place restrictions on that chemical or not allow it into the food supply at all.”
In the United States, we are seeing action at the state level. California banned four chemicals by 2023: brominated vegetable oil, red dye No. 3, propylparaben, and potassium bromate. This year, lawmakers About a dozen states The same chemical and some states have introduced legislation to ban additional chemicals as well. But federal oversight is limited, constrained by a lack of priorities, authority, and resources.
There is a new deputy commissioner of the FDA’s Human Foods Program, and there is some hope among advocates that the administration may change its approach. We reached out to the FDA, and a spokesperson said the agency needs more funding to expand food oversight: “Prioritization and drive can only take us so far, and our current budget constraints will limit the number and pace of evaluations.”
Why do things work differently in the US? And what does that mean for our food? We answer these questions in this week’s episode Please explain to me. Below is an excerpt from my conversation with Benesh, edited for length and clarity.
you can listen explain me on Apple Podcasts, Spotifyor Wherever you find podcasts. If you would like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@vox.com or call 1-800-618-8545.
How does food ingredient approval work here in the US?
We should also have a precautionary approach here. The legal standard is something called reasonable certainty of no harm. This includes acute damage, but also chronic damage. Like, “Will it increase my risk of cancer if I eat this every day for the next 30 years?”
When did these rules come into effect? How did they come to be?
World War II was a period of rapid industrialization and the rise of convenience foods and frozen dinners. Many new substances were introduced into the food supply. The FDA realized they didn’t really know much about these chemicals and couldn’t assure Americans they were safe.
The FDA created what was meant to be a premarket approval process, meaning that the FDA looks at the chemical before it is used in food, before consumers are exposed to it in their food. They created this system in 1958, but they did not include a “lookback provision” for foods already on the shelves. So we have a lot of chemicals that simply haven’t been looked at and given a meaningful review for decades.
The other fundamental and, I think, terrible problem with our food chemical system in the United States is that most of the new chemicals on the market today are not even looked at by the FDA.
Why did this happen?
When Congress wrote the Food Chemicals Act, they included an exception for such things Generally recognized as safe, or GRAS. It was intended to be a narrow loophole, with an exception for things that really have a general acceptance of security: things like spices or Vinegar or flour or table salt. Instead of the FDA spending the time and resources to fully assess the risks of those chemicals before allowing them to be used in food, they can simply state that they are generally recognized as safe.
What happened over time is that the loophole really consumed the whole process. [EWG]did An analysis in 2022Where we found that 99 percent of new food chemicals are exploiting this GRAS loophole.
The FDA has created a voluntary notification process, so companies determine whether a food is eligible for a GRAS exemption through their own in-house scientists or they can contract with them. An outer panel. Whether or not they want to tell the FDA that their chemical is GRAS is up to them.
Why does America deal with it differently? Why are other countries more cautious and we are not?
One problem we have is that many programs at FDA, particularly drug programs, are funded by industry user fees. So they have to pay a fee if they try to get a product approved by the FDA or register with the FDA. There is no equivalent user fee for food chemicals. FDA has a resource problem, and Congress has not determined the amount of funding FDA needs to conduct these chemical reviews.
But I think there has been a degree of inertia. I don’t think there is enough pressure on the FDA to take these food chemical reviews more seriously. A lot of the leadership at the FDA—former FDA commissioners, current FDA commissioners—actually come from a drug background rather than a food background. F is sometimes referred to in the FDA as “silent F”.
Interestingly, the underlying law – the 1958 Act – is a beautiful law. It is not a matter of authority; I think it’s a problem of resources. But should that stop them from looking hard at chemicals, proactively identifying chemicals? no And we’ve asked the FDA to look at specific chemicals, so that’s a good starting point.
Do you think anything will change?
Something has changed in the last few years, I think, in response to several shocking revelations in the FDA food program. they did Reorganize their food programWhich came into effect from 1 October. now one Office of Food Chemical Safety. The FDA recently held a public meeting about starting a food chemical reevaluation program where they will go back and look at food chemicals.
Events are happening. I think there is a growing awareness within agencies that this is a problem. new The Deputy Commissioner for Human Food is a man named Jim Joneswho has long been in charge of the pesticide review program and other chemical review programs at EPA. He understands chemical issues in a way that much FDA leadership historically has not. Bringing in Jim Jones is a really good move and very promising.
