Congress Reviews Safety of Chemical Additives in US Food Products

Have you ever carefully examined the ingredient labels on those tempting meats, dairy products, and eggs on your table? Behind their harmless appearance may lurk health risks you've never considered. The chemical additives widely used in food production - do you truly understand them? Are they guardians of food safety or threats to public health?

A storm is brewing in Washington as Congress considers legislation that could fundamentally change how we define "safe food." The proposed Agricultural Food Chemical Reassessment Act might force the food industry to reevaluate decades-old safety standards for common additives.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky recently introduced the Agricultural Food Chemical Reassessment Act , which would require the USDA and its Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to reevaluate seven chemical substances commonly found in meat, dairy, and egg products. Schakowsky isn't acting alone - the bill boasts co-sponsors from Washington D.C., California, and Connecticut, signaling broad concern about food safety.

The legislation targets seven specific chemicals: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), cetylpyridinium chloride, sodium aluminum phosphate, sodium nitrite, sulfuric acid, and titanium dioxide. These substances serve as preservatives, antioxidants, and coloring agents - ubiquitous in processed foods but potentially problematic for human health.

Schakowsky's office revealed a startling fact: safety assessments for these chemicals haven't been updated for decades, with some already banned in the European Union and other nations due to health concerns. This means Americans may be consuming additives deemed unsafe elsewhere.

• BHA: Last evaluated in 1977, this antioxidant has been on California's Proposition 65 list of potentially carcinogenic chemicals since 1990.
• BHT: Similarly unevaluated since 1977, this antioxidant's cancer risks remain controversial despite some antiviral properties.
• Cetylpyridinium chloride: Banned in the EU, this antimicrobial last faced scrutiny in 2004.
• Sodium aluminum phosphate: Prohibited in most EU foods since its 1977 evaluation, this leavening agent may harm kidney function.
• Sodium nitrite: Banned in Norway and Sweden, this preservative can form carcinogenic nitrosamines when reacting with amines.
• Sulfuric acid: Last reviewed in 1980, this pH adjuster becomes dangerous at high concentrations.
• Titanium dioxide: Banned in the EU and six other countries since its 1972 evaluation, this whitening agent may damage DNA.

Lawmakers selected these chemicals because existing research links them to serious health issues including cancer, hormonal disruption, reproductive toxicity, ulcerative colitis, DNA damage, organ failure, and environmental toxicity. The concerns stem from multiple scientific studies:

• Cancer: BHA, BHT, and sodium nitrite may cause DNA damage and oxidative stress.
• Hormonal disruption: Some additives may interfere with endocrine function.
• Reproductive toxicity: Potential links to infertility and birth defects.
• Inflammatory conditions: Possible exacerbation of ulcerative colitis symptoms.
• Organ damage: Long-term exposure may harm kidneys, liver, and lungs.

Most targeted chemicals entered the food supply through the "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) designation, which allows manufacturers - not federal regulators - to determine safety. This self-certification system raises questions about objectivity and potential conflicts of interest.

Last year, California banned four FDA-approved chemicals (brominated vegetable oil, Red Dye 3, potassium bromate, and propylparaben) due to cancer risks and developmental concerns. This state action demonstrates how local governments can advance food safety when federal standards lag.

If passed, the bill would force significant changes:

• Reformulation: Manufacturers would need alternative preservatives and additives.
• Labeling: New disclosure requirements might increase production costs.
• Consumer trust: Reevaluation could rebuild confidence or spark new concerns.
• Innovation: The legislation may drive research into safer alternatives.

The bill faces congressional hurdles before potential presidential approval, with food industry opposition likely. However, its passage could mark a turning point in American food safety standards, aligning U.S. regulations more closely with international norms.