Table of Contents
Food additives have been meticulously examined in recent months and the Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Recently announced the prohibition of eight food coloring frequently used food and drinks.
Two oil -based synthetic dyes are set to be imminently removed, while the other six must be withdrawn from products by the end of 2026.
Kennedy Jr was A vocal critic of food additivesDepending on their impact on health, in particular their potential neurological effect on children and the Food and Drug Administration (Fda) Approved alternative food dyes from natural rather than synthetic sources.
Food dyes have been linked to a range of health effects, including an increased risk of cancer, behavioral problems in children, hormonal disturbances and a greater probability of obesity. However, the answer is not as simple as to remove all the additives from the food.
“Many additives are necessary, are not harmful and constitute an important part of the flavor, texture and stability of food,” said Emily Broad Leib, Director of the Clinic of Food Law and Policies and Innovation of Health and Policy Law at Harvard Law School, said Nowsweek.
Although this is said to be, as “it was so easy to create and add new additives to food”, added Broad Leib “, we have really allowed companies to become uncontrollable with the number of things they add, without having a clear requirement to benefit consumers and without sufficient knowledge on their impacts alone or cumulatively.”
What is the FDA doing about food additives?
The FDA has recently prohibited several food colors: Citrus Red n ° 2 and Orange B, which will soon lose their authorization, and six FD & C dyes which should be removed by 2026, green n ° 3, red n ° 40, n ° 5 and 6 and blue n ° 1 and 2.
The FDA also asked that food companies to delete FD & C Red n ° 3 earlier than the deadline from 2027 to 2028 is previously required.
Earlier this month, the FDA also approved the use of the Gardenia color (Genipin) in various foods, which is derived from the fruit of the Gardenia with persistent leaves. It was the fourth color derived naturally approved by the FDA for use in food in the past two months.
The FDA is also currently examining a number of other additives, with potassium bromate, propylparaben and titanium dioxide all on the list of “chemicals in food supply under the FDA review”.
According to the environmental working group (EWG), titanium dioxide has been associated with potential immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity, while potassium bromate is associated with an increased risk of cancer. It is believed that Propylparaben is a hormonal disruptor.
More recently, the FDA added Hydroxyanisole butylé (BHA) and azodicarbonamide (ADA) to its list for revision and has moved to prohibit brommed vegetable oil (BVO). The BHA is supposed to increase the risk of cancer and cause hormonal disturbances, while ADA is supposed to form carcinogenic by-products, and the BVO is supposed to harm the nervous system, the reproductive system and the thyroid hormonal system, according to the EWG.
An FDA spokesman said Nowsweek The FDA has also recently released For public comment Its post-commerce assessment prioritization tool for the classification of chemicals in food supply, allowing it to “determine which chemicals the agency is prioritizing post-commerce assessments”.
This will allow the FDA to “allocate resources more effectively, ensuring that the agency focuses on food chemicals which can present the greatest potential public health risk, including the risk for sensitive populations, and are very worrying of the public,” they said.
“Determine whether a chemical product – be intentionally added to food or a contaminant that is not intentionally added – must be evaluated more on the basis of new information adopts a structured and scientific approach to ensure that Consumer Health Protective FDA exams,” said FDA spokesperson.
“The FDA is committed to radical transparency while the agency develops processes to prioritize chemicals in food for a post-commercial assessment. These processes will help guarantee that the FDA adopts a risk-focused approach to examine data and information on chemical security in food supply to protect consumers’ health.”
What states do about food additives
California was there First state of the country to prohibit certain food dyes, And he has already promulgated legislation prohibiting the sale, distribution and production of food products containing BVO. Since then, more states have followed suit with similar proposals.
Many other states now have suspended legislation presented this year to prohibit dyes and additives, especially in schools to protect children from potential health risks.
Florida has proposed legislation to prohibit schools serving food containing BHA, ADA, BHT and BVO, and many other additives. However, the bill (SB 560) died in the Senate Credit committee on June 16.
Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, also envisage BVO prohibitions and other FDA reviews in school meals, while New Jersey and Wisconsin are looking to prohibit Ada as well as BVO and others.
Pennsylvania is trying to make sure that all products containing BHA come with a clear warning.
Some states like Hawaii, Illinois and Ohio have sought to ban the use of single -use food packaging and to serve containers intentionally made to have “chemicals forever”, ” known as PFAS, which are carcinogenic for man.
Broad Leib said Nowsweek That some states, including Louisiana, also try to prohibit the use of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, cotton oil and grape oil.
Is the FDA exam on food chemicals going far enough?
Sheela Sathyanarayana, professor of pediatrics and environmental and professional health sciences at the children’s research institute at the University of Washington and Seattle, said Nowsweek It was “absolutely not” the case that the current FDA process to regulate and examine additives in food went far enough.
“We have some of the most lax regulations thanks to generally recognized (fat) provisions,” she said. “While the FDA focuses on dyes and these three additives is a good first step, it is very tiny in the range of the wider image.”
“I think the FDA has been a little random in their chemical exams to date,” said Broad Leib.
Last fall, the agency presented A discussion document on how to better manage the post-commercial revision process of chemicals, however, Broad Leib said that, in his opinion, this “was not strong enough”.
The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic suggested in an FDA commentary on its proposal that if a state or peer jurisdiction prohibits a chemical, it should trigger an immediate 120 -day period for the FDA to assess the chemical in question.
Broad Leib said that the FDA had not yet published “general response to this file and has not published a updated discussion document”.
Commenting on the publication by the agency of a new document for public comments on how to prioritize chemicals for examination, Broad Leib said: “I think [it] shows that they are thinking about the problem and trying to improve to report chemicals. “”
Overall, despite the efforts of the FDA, Broad Leib said that it thought “that there were serious shortcomings in the FDA exam on chemicals, both pre-market and post-marker”.
She said that there was a “gap” in the pre-market exam, by which companies can “self-take a substance to be fatty and thus avoid the additive process, avoid monitoring of the FDA and even avoid the notification of the FDA”.
All these processes are voluntary for fatty substances, which means that it allows many substances to sneak into food “without the FDA even having them on its radar,” she added.
She said that the FDA “has long been without a solid process to transparently identify worrying substances, quickly examine evidence, then take decisive measures if necessary.”
