Is the FDA Doing Enough About Food Additives?
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Food additives have come under increasing scrutiny in recent months, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced a ban on eight frequently used food dyes from food and beverages.
Two petroleum-based synthetic dyes are set to be phased out imminently, while the other six must be removed from products by the end of 2026.
Kennedy Jr has been a vocal critic of food additives, based on their impact on health, particularly their potential neurological effect on children, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been approving alternative food dyes that come from natural, rather than synthetic, sources.
Food dyes have been linked to a range of health effects, including increased cancer risk, behavioral issues in children, hormonal disruption, and a higher likelihood of obesity. However, the answer is not as simple as removing all additives from food.
"Many additives are needed, are not harmful, and are an important part of food flavor, texture, and stability," Emily Broad Leib, director of both the Food Law and Policy Clinic and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, told Newsweek.
Although, that said, as "it has been so easy to create and add new additives to food," Broad Leib added, "we have really allowed companies to get out of hand with how many things they are adding, without having clear requirement that they benefit consumers and without enough knowledge about their impacts alone or cumulatively."
What Is The FDA Doing About Food Additives?
The FDA recently banned several food dyes: Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B, which will lose their authorization soon, and six FD&C dyes which are scheduled for removal by 2026, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow Nos. 5 and 6, and Blue Nos. 1 and 2.
The FDA has also requested that food companies remove FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027 to 2028 deadline previously required.
Earlier this month, the FDA also approved the use of the color gardenia (genipin) blue in various foods, which is derived from the fruit of the evergreen, gardenia. This was the fourth naturally-derived color approved by the FDA for use in foods in the last two months.
The FDA is also currently reviewing a number of other additives, with potassium bromate, propylparaben and titanium dioxide all on the FDA's list of "chemicals in the food supply under 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. Propylparaben is thought to be a hormone disrupter.
More recently, the FDA added butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and azodicarbonamide (ADA) to its list for reviewing and has moved to ban brominated vegetable oil (BVO) . BHA is believed to increase risk of cancer and cause hormone disruption, while ADA is believed to form carcinogenic byproducts, and BVO is believed to harm the nervous system, reproductive system and thyroid hormone system, according to EWG.
An FDA spokesperson told Newsweek the FDA has also recently released for public comment its Post-market Assessment Prioritization Tool for ranking chemicals in the food supply, enabling it to "determine which chemicals the agency would prioritize for post-market assessments."
This will allow the FDA to "allocate resources more efficiently, ensuring that the agency focuses on food chemicals that may present the greatest potential public health risk, including risk to sensitive populations, and are of high public concern," they said.
"Determining if a chemical—either one intentionally added to food or a contaminant that is not intentionally added—needs to be further evaluated based on new information takes a structured and science-based approach to ensure that the FDA's reviews are protective of the health of consumers," FDA spokesperson said.
"The FDA is committed to radical transparency as the agency develops processes for prioritizing chemicals in food for a post-market assessment. These processes will help to ensure that FDA is taking a risk-informed approach in reviewing data and information about the safety of chemicals in the food supply to protect the health of consumers."
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty
What States Are Doing About Food Additives
California was the first state in the country to ban certain food dyes, and it has already enacted legislation banning 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 pending legislation introduced this year to ban food dyes and additives—particularly in school settings to protect children from potential health risks.
Florida proposed legislation to ban schools serving food containing BHA, ADA, BHT and BVO, and many other additives. However, the bill (SB 560) died in the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16.
Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, are also considering bans on BVO and other additives under FDA review in school meals, while New Jersey and Wisconsin are seeking to ban ADA as well as BVO and others.
Pennsylvania is trying to ensure any 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 serving containers being intentionally manufactured to have "forever chemicals," known as PFAS, which are carcinogenic to humans.
Broad Leib told Newsweek that some states, including Louisiana, are also trying to ban the use of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, cottonseed oil, and grapeseed oil.
Does the FDA's Review of Food Chemicals Go Far Enough?
Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics and environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Research Institute, told Newsweek it was "absolutely not" the case that the FDA's current process for regulating and reviewing additives in food went far enough.
"We have some of the most lax regulations through generally recognized as safe (GRAS) provisions," she said. "While FDA focusing on dyes and these three additives is a good first step, it is very minuscule in the scope of the broader picture."
"I think that FDA has been a little haphazard in their review of chemicals to date," Broad Leib said.
Last fall, the agency introduced a discussion paper on how to better manage the process for post-market review of chemicals, however, Broad Leib said that, in her opinion, this "was not strong enough."
The Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic suggested in a comment to the FDA on its proposal that if a state or peer jurisdiction bans a chemical, it should trigger an immediate 120-day review period for FDA to assess the chemical in question.
Broad Leib said that FDA has not yet issued any "general response to that docket and has not put out an updated discussion paper."
Commenting on the agency's release of a new document for public comment on how to prioritize chemicals for review, Broad Leib said: "I think [it] shows that they are thinking about the issue and trying to get better at flagging chemicals of concern."
Overall, despite the FDA's efforts, Broad Leib said that she thought "there are some serious gaps in FDA's review of chemicals, both premarket and post-market."
She said that there is a "loophole" in premarket review, whereby companies can "self-designate a substance to be GRAS and thus avoid the additive process, avoid FDA oversight, and even avoid FDA notification."
All of these processes are voluntary for GRAS substances, meaning that this enables many substances to sneak into food "without FDA even having them on its radar," she added.
She said that the FDA "has long been without a strong process for transparently identifying substances of concern, quickly reviewing evidence, and then taking decisive action when needed."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Ice Cream Recalled Nationwide As Warning Issued Over Products
Tropicale Foods, based in Ontario, California, announced on Friday a voluntary recall of select Helados Mexico and La Michoacana ice cream products. The decision followed a label audit which revealed that although the products list "cream," they do not explicitly declare "milk"—that could endanger those allergic to milk. Newsweek contacted the company for comment on Sunday via email outside of usual working hours. Milk is a major allergen under federal labeling laws, and its accidental presence in products poses a risk to consumers with allergies or severe sensitivities. Undeclared ingredients can trigger life-threatening reactions, making accurate labeling a critical public health requirement. The company announcement, published on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s website on Saturday, states: "Tropicale Foods of Ontario, CA is recalling certain Helados Mexico and La Michoacana products with specific best by dates, as detailed below because these products contain undeclared milk. "Though these products include 'cream' in the product ingredient lists, the common name 'milk' is not declared. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products." Affected items include single-flavor offerings (such as Coconut, Strawberry, Bubble Gum, Cookies and Cream, Mango), as well as multi-packs (6‑pack, 12‑pack, 16‑pack varieties). The recalled products are as follows: Photos of the affected products are available on the FDA website. The recall covers a wide range of "best by" dates from May 2026 through July 2027. Distribution spanned retail locations nationwide across the U.S. As of the FDA announcement, one consumer illness has been reported. Consumers with affected items who are allergic or sensitive to milk are advised not to consume the products and to properly dispose of them. Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE) states on its website: "When a person with a milk allergy is exposed to milk, proteins in the milk bind to specific antibodies made by the person's immune system. This triggers the person's immune defenses, leading to reaction symptoms that can be mild or very severe." Consumers who have the affected product should dispose of and not consume this product if allergic or sensitive to milk, and consult medical advice if symptoms arise. Anyone with queries may contact the company at 909-563-3090 between 8 am and 5 pm Pacific, Monday to Friday. The FDA will continue oversight and monitor any additional consumer reports or updates. Related Articles Is the FDA Doing Enough About Food Additives?Nationwide Ritz Cracker Recall Update as FDA Issues Risk WarningCanned Fruit Recall Sparks Nationwide Warning to CustomersFDA Issues Highest Risk Warning for Tofu Recall 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Coke with cane sugar may not be that big of a MAHA victory
Coca-Cola is going to offer a cane sugar version of its signature beverage, rather than one sweetened with corn syrup. Major segments of the food industry, including General Mills and Heinz, have pledged to remove certain colored dyes from their products. The fast-food chain Steak 'n Shake is making french fries in beef tallow rather than vegetable oil. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed them all as significant victories for his 'make America healthy again' (MAHA) movement as part of its quest to reform the U.S. food supply. 'Froot Loops is finally following its nose — toward common sense,' Kennedy said on social platform X after cereal-maker WK Kellogg Co. agreed to remove synthetic dyes from its cereal by 2027. 'I urge more companies to step up and join the movement to Make America Healthy Again.' But nutrition and food policy experts say the moves are a far cry from actually making America healthier. While they praised the administration and MAHA for drawing attention to what they said is a broken food system, the victories touted thus far have been largely symbolic and rely on the goodwill of an industry that is eager to appear helpful to avoid strict government regulation. 'I think if we're really curious about improving public health, some of the small health initiatives, like … replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar, are really not where the administration should be channeling their efforts and leveraging the power that they do have,' said Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the George Washington University Global Food Institute. 'I think they should be focusing their efforts on initiatives that actually address the root of the problem, which is essentially a food system that promotes excess sugar, salt and fat,' Fielding-Singh said. Health officials and GOP lawmakers have taken to conservative media in recent weeks to tout the commitments from food and beverage companies to remove synthetic dyes. According to the HHS, nearly 35 percent of the industry has made such a commitment. But there's been no force behind the companies' actions, which experts said is an issue. 'Simply switching from synthetic to natural colors will not make these products less likely to cause obesity,' said Jerold Mande, a former senior official during three administrations at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, said Kennedy could make a major statement by banning all colors and dyes. It wouldn't directly make Americans healthy, but it would go a long way toward making ultra-processed food look less appealing. 'All this voluntary stuff only goes so far. It really does minimal impact,' Popkin said. 'Unless he goes to the FDA and has the FDA change a regulation … there's nothing.' Kennedy has also singled out the use of high-fructose corn syrup as a major contributor to diabetes and obesity. He has previously called it 'poison,' an epithet he repeated in late April when talking about sugar. When Steak 'n Shake said earlier this month it was going to sell Coca-Cola with real cane sugar, Kennedy praised the move. 'MAHA is winning,' Kennedy posted on X. But experts said there's no substantial difference in the benefits of using cane sugar as a substitute for high-fructose corn syrup. 'At the end of the day, a Coke is still a can of Coke. It's not a fruit or a vegetable, right? And so if you're not shifting consumption away from these higher calorie, lower nutrient processed foods, toward nutrient dense, health promoting foods, then you're not actually going to be shifting the health of Americans in the right direction,' Fielding-Singh said. But if Kennedy thinks sugar is poison, 'they're both sugar and would both be poison, in his words,' said Mande, who is now CEO of Nourish Science. Health officials argue industry cooperation is key to the MAHA agenda. 'Working with industry is the best place to start. And we believe in industry to do the right thing when called upon,' Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz wrote in a joint op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. 'Our agencies are in a strong position to show Americans which companies are doing the right thing when it comes to popular reforms. By the time we're done, we will have built new relationships and be better positioned to hold them accountable,' Makary and Oz wrote. Yet there is plenty the agency can, and should do, that industry has pushed back against. Aviva Musicus, science director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said MAHA is wasting its political capital. 'It's striking that we haven't seen the administration use policy to improve the food system. It's solely relying on voluntary industry commitments that we've seen repeatedly fail in the past,' Musicus said. 'In pushing the food industry to change, Trump and RFK Jr. have a chance to live up to their promises to fight chronic disease. Coca-Cola is at the table, but they're wasting the opportunity to actually improve health. The administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar,' Musicus added. Popkin said he would like to see warning labels on ultra-processed foods high in sodium, added sugar and saturated fat. Kennedy 'hasn't tackled ultra-processed food yet. That'll be where he could make an impact on health in the U.S. and all the non-communicable diseases, including obesity. But he hasn't gone there yet,' Popkin said. The coming months will reveal more on the MAHA movement's plans to change how Americans eat. New dietary guidelines will be released 'in the next several months,' Kennedy said recently. In addition, a second MAHA report focused on policy recommendations is expected in August. 'We have to be considering that there could be real potential down the road,' Popkin said. 'But [there's been] nothing yet. That document will tell us if there ever be.'
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
The FDA must crack down on dangerous knockoff weight-loss drugs
For the first time, there is real hope in the fight against obesity. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics shows that adult obesity rates in the U.S. may finally be flatlining after annual increases since at least 2011. Obesity has long been understood to be the second leading cause of preventable death in America. Neither negative cultural attitudes about weight nor government messaging campaigns about diets have helped curb it. Yet like most insurmountable problems, we are innovating our way out of it. Experts believe a significant part of recent progress is due to powerful new medications such as Ozempic and Mounjaro, known as GLP-1 drugs. But just as these drugs are changing lives, a dangerous shadow market is growing alongside them. Compounded versions, which are copies of the original drugs made in smaller pharmacies, are flooding websites, med spas and clinics. These versions are often cheaper and easier to get than the real thing. They are also frequently untested, poorly regulated and, in many cases, illegal. The FDA has received more than 500 reports of serious side effects tied to compounded semaglutide and tirzepatide, the active ingredients in Ozempic and Mounjaro. Some patients have landed in the hospital after taking the wrong dose. That is not surprising when you consider that many of these vials come without proper labels or instructions. In 2023 alone, poison control centers received nearly 3,000 semaglutide-related calls, a huge jump from previous years. Many of those cases involved compounded or mislabeled versions of the medication. There are also serious concerns about what is actually in these products. The FDA has warned that some pharmacies are using different chemical forms of semaglutide, called salt forms, that are not approved for use and may not be safe. In April 2025, the agency seized counterfeit Ozempic from the U.S. supply chain after discovering that some vials contained the wrong ingredients or were contaminated with dangerous bacteria. These are not technical violations. They are real risks to people's health. During earlier shortages, compounding was allowed under special circumstances. But those shortages have ended, and the FDA has ordered most pharmacies to stop making these versions. Despite that, many continue to operate in legal gray zones or offer these drugs online. The harm does not stop with safety concerns. This trend also threatens future breakthroughs in obesity care. Companies like Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly spent years and billions of dollars to develop these treatments. Now, they and others are working on new and even more effective drugs. When unapproved copies flood the market, it becomes harder to fund innovation. If investors cannot count on fair returns, the next generation of such medications may not make it out of the lab. Perhaps the biggest risk is to public trust. When someone has a bad experience with a fake or contaminated version, they may begin to doubt all weight loss innovations. That fear can ripple through the health system, making insurers and doctors more hesitant to support treatments that are helping with the genuine public health emergency of obesity. None of this means that compounding should disappear. It has a place when patients have specific medical needs that cannot be met by the approved versions, such as allergies or special dosing requirements. But what is happening now is not about rare exceptions. The FDA should continue cracking down on compounders that use unapproved ingredients or sell mislabeled products disguised as 'research chemicals.' At the same time, insurers and lawmakers need to make the real thing more affordable by removing middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers. No one should have to choose between risking their health and going broke. We are finally making progress against a disease that affects nearly half the country and has stumped policymakers and advocates for decades. But progress is fragile. Unregulated versions of GLP-1s cannot be allowed to dominate the market. We risk undoing the progress reported by the CDC in the fight against obesity, and if we get this right, the trend could be reversed. That means longer lives for more people, lived in dignity and to the fullest.
