{"id":13146,"date":"2025-02-06T15:18:23","date_gmt":"2025-02-06T20:18:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=13146"},"modified":"2025-12-08T16:25:34","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T21:25:34","slug":"six-ways-fda-can-do-better-on-food-safety","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2025\/02\/06\/six-ways-fda-can-do-better-on-food-safety\/","title":{"rendered":"Six ways FDA can do better on food safety"},"content":{"rendered":"

What Happened:\u00a0<\/span><\/b>
\n<\/span>Bipartisan support is growing for food safety reform as U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering <\/span>comments<\/span><\/a> on a new process for reassessing chemicals already on the market<\/span> . On January 21, EDF submitted <\/span>comments<\/span><\/a> to FDA<\/span> on how the agency should strengthen its <\/span>proposal<\/span><\/a> for a process to ensure the safety of existing ingredients in the market. While EDF supports modernizing FDA\u2019s Human Food Program processes and methods<\/span>, <\/span>the current proposal falls short <\/span>on transparency, efficiency, and scientific rigor.<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Why it Matters: <\/span><\/b>
\nThe public deserves a systematic, science-based approach to food chemical safety. FDA\u2019s current process is outdated, opaque, and reactive rather than proactive. Delays in addressing chemical safety are common, with FDA often <\/span>taking years to act<\/span><\/a> on food additive petitions and chemical reassessments. Many <\/span>food <\/span>chemicals<\/span><\/a> were approved decades ago using little or <\/span>no data <\/span><\/a> and have not been reevaluated since.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

FDA often relies only on its own studies, while ignoring or disregarding findings from other authoritative institutions such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), seemingly unable to acknowledge modernizing science. This failure to consider the full picture and the best available science undermines public health.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, the agency fails to consider the <\/span>cumulative effects<\/span><\/a> of multiple related substances. People aren\u2019t exposed to single chemical<\/span>s<\/span> in isolation, yet the FDA continues to evaluate them as if they are. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While FDA leadership has emphasized that food chemical safety is a top priority for the Human Foods Program, historical lack of action has <\/span>driven states<\/span><\/a> like California to implement its own food additive regulations. This state-by-state approach creates a patchwork of rules that highlights the urgency for stronger federal leadership to protect all Americans from toxic chemicals.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Our Take:<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span>FDA\u2019s proposed process is a step forward but needs significant improvement<\/span>s<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. FDA should set up a true prioritization process<\/span><\/b>
    \n<\/span><\/p>\n