Is the FDA doing enough about food additives?

Published in Food and Wine on Sunday, July 27th 2025 at 5:07 GMT by Newsweek
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Food dyes are known to have a wide range of impacts on health, such as cancer risks, behavioral problems in children, and disruption to hormones.

FDA's Evolving Policies on Food Additives: Safety, Controversy, and the Push for Reform

In the aisles of any American supermarket, consumers encounter a dazzling array of processed foods—vibrant cereals, shelf-stable snacks, and fizzy beverages—that owe their appeal, longevity, and flavor to a hidden arsenal of chemical additives. These substances, ranging from preservatives to artificial colors and flavor enhancers, are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency tasked with ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply. However, recent scrutiny has cast a spotlight on the FDA's policies, revealing a complex web of regulations, loopholes, and ongoing debates about whether these additives truly protect public health or expose consumers to unnecessary risks. As concerns mount over potential links to health issues like hyperactivity in children, cancer, and endocrine disruption, the FDA finds itself at a crossroads, balancing industry innovation with consumer safety.

At its core, the FDA's oversight of food additives stems from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which was significantly amended in 1958 with the Food Additives Amendment. This legislation requires that any new food additive undergo rigorous safety testing before approval, unless it falls under the category of "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS). The GRAS designation, intended as a shortcut for substances with a long history of safe use—like salt or vinegar—has become a point of contention. Critics argue it has morphed into a loophole allowing manufacturers to self-certify thousands of additives without FDA review, potentially bypassing essential scrutiny.

The process begins when a company petitions the FDA for approval of a new additive. The agency evaluates data on toxicity, exposure levels, and potential health effects, often relying on animal studies and epidemiological data. If approved, the additive is listed with specific usage guidelines, such as maximum allowable concentrations. For instance, preservatives like sodium benzoate prevent microbial growth in sodas and condiments, while emulsifiers like lecithin keep ingredients from separating in products like mayonnaise. Artificial colors, such as Red Dye No. 40, enhance visual appeal in candies and beverages, making them more marketable, especially to children.

Yet, this system is far from foolproof. Over the years, the FDA has banned or restricted several additives after post-market evidence revealed risks. A notable recent example is brominated vegetable oil (BVO), used to stabilize citrus flavors in sodas like Mountain Dew and Gatorade. In July 2024, the FDA revoked BVO's authorization, citing studies linking it to thyroid issues and bioaccumulation in fatty tissues. This move followed decades of international bans—in the European Union and Japan, BVO has been prohibited for years—and pressure from consumer advocacy groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Similarly, the agency is reevaluating Red Dye No. 3, a synthetic colorant found in products like Peeps and certain cereals, due to evidence from animal studies suggesting carcinogenic potential. California has already banned it in schools, and petitions are urging a nationwide prohibition.

These actions highlight a broader pattern of reactive rather than proactive regulation. The FDA's GRAS self-determination process, established in 1997, allows companies to hire experts to deem an additive safe based on scientific consensus or historical use, without mandatory notification to the agency. According to estimates, over 1,000 substances have entered the food supply this way, including novel ingredients like caffeine-infused energy enhancers or plant-based stabilizers. Critics, including environmental health organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG), contend this creates conflicts of interest, as industry-funded studies may downplay risks. "The GRAS loophole is essentially the fox guarding the henhouse," said Scott Faber, EWG's senior vice president for government affairs, in a recent statement. "Consumers deserve transparency and independent oversight, not self-regulation by profit-driven corporations."

The debate intensifies when considering vulnerable populations. Children, for example, consume higher relative amounts of additives through snacks and drinks, raising alarms about behavioral effects. A landmark 2007 study in The Lancet linked artificial colors and preservatives to increased hyperactivity in kids, prompting the European Union to require warning labels on products containing certain dyes. In the U.S., while the FDA maintains that approved additives are safe at intended levels, ongoing research suggests cumulative exposure—from multiple sources—could pose unforeseen dangers. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA), once common in can linings, have been phased out in many applications after links to hormonal imbalances, but similar concerns linger for phthalates and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that migrate into food from packaging.

Industry defenders argue that additives are essential for food security and affordability. They prevent spoilage, extend shelf life, and enable mass production, which keeps costs down and reduces food waste—a critical issue amid global supply chain challenges. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (now part of the Consumer Brands Association) emphasizes that the FDA's rigorous standards ensure safety, pointing to the agency's requirement for a "reasonable certainty of no harm" threshold. Moreover, innovations in additives support dietary trends, such as low-sugar sweeteners like aspartame or stevia extracts, which help combat obesity by providing calorie-free alternatives.

Despite these benefits, public distrust is growing, fueled by high-profile recalls and international discrepancies. For instance, potassium bromate, a dough conditioner linked to cancer in animal studies, is banned in the EU, China, and Brazil but remains legal in the U.S. with labeling requirements in some states. This patchwork of regulations underscores the FDA's challenges in keeping pace with scientific advancements. In response, the agency has initiated reforms. In 2023, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced plans to modernize the food program, including enhanced post-market surveillance and a reevaluation of GRAS substances. A proposed rule aims to require companies to notify the FDA of GRAS determinations, closing the voluntary loophole. Additionally, the agency is investing in advanced toxicology methods, like computational modeling, to predict risks without relying solely on animal testing.

Experts like Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition at New York University, advocate for even bolder changes. "The FDA needs to shift from a presumption of safety to one of caution," Nestle told Newsweek. "We should prioritize natural alternatives and demand long-term human studies for all additives." Consumer behavior is also evolving; a 2024 Nielsen survey found that 78% of Americans actively avoid artificial ingredients, boosting demand for "clean label" products free of synthetic additives.

Looking ahead, the FDA's policies could face legislative pressure. Bills like the Food Chemical Reassessment Act, introduced in Congress, seek independent reviews of high-priority additives, including those with known risks like titanium dioxide, a whitening agent in candies and baked goods that's banned in the EU over genotoxicity concerns. As climate change and supply disruptions intensify, the role of additives in fortifying food resilience will remain vital, but so will the imperative for transparency.

Ultimately, the story of FDA food additive policies is one of progress amid pitfalls. From the early days of unregulated "patent medicines" to today's data-driven approvals, the system has evolved, yet gaps persist. For consumers, the key lies in informed choices—reading labels, supporting organic options, and advocating for stricter oversight. As the agency navigates these waters, the balance between innovation and safety will determine the health of future generations. Whether through bans, reforms, or consumer-driven change, the era of unquestioned additive use may be drawing to a close, ushering in a more scrutinized approach to what's really in our food.

(Word count: 1,056)

Read the Full Newsweek Article at:
[ https://www.newsweek.com/fda-policies-food-additives-2102129 ]

DIY Woodworking

Announcing The World''s Largest Collection of 16,000 Woodworking Plans

Similar Food and Wine Publications

[ Sat, Jun 14th ]: CNN

Harmful ultraprocessed foods may be removed from billions of California school lunches

N※N

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking

DIY Woodworking