FDA Proposal to Expand Toxic Chemical Loophole Sparks Backlash Over Hidden Risks
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed expanding the 'threshold of regulation' (TOR) exemption, which would allow certain toxic chemicals to be added directly to food without safety review. Critics argue this move undermines recent claims by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that the agency is closing regulatory loopholes, potentially exposing consumers to harmful substances like perchlorate and endocrine disruptors at low levels.
Key points
- The FDA proposal would extend the TOR exemption to chemicals used as flavorings, preservatives, and processing aids in ultra-processed foods, not just food contact materials.
- The current TOR loophole allows non-carcinogenic chemicals to be used without review if present at levels below 0.5 parts per billion (ppb), a threshold critics say is insufficient for endocrine disruptors.
- Advocates warn that the expansion ignores cumulative effects and fails to account for chemicals that cause harm at doses far below the 0.5 ppb limit, such as perchlorate, phthalates, and bisphenols.
- The proposal was submitted quietly alongside a rule regarding the 'generally regarded as safe' (Gras) standard, which Kennedy and the FDA previously touted as a major victory for food safety.
- Critics accuse the administration of deception, noting that the Gras rule changes are voluntary and that the TOR expansion effectively counters any safety gains by allowing more unregulated ingredients.
Background
This development follows a series of recent food safety incidents, including a Class I recall of Whole Foods guacamole due to salmonella and a Class II recall of Gatorade over undeclared dyes. Additionally, a recent report by the Clean Label Project highlighted widespread heavy metal contamination in pet foods, underscoring ongoing concerns about toxic substances in the food supply chain.
Why it matters
The proposed rule could significantly increase consumer exposure to potentially harmful chemicals without adequate safety oversight or labeling. If implemented, it may undermine public trust in food safety regulations and contradict the administration's stated goals of improving health outcomes through stricter standards.
What to watch
The FDA has not responded to requests for comment. The proposal is currently under review, and advocates are expected to continue lobbying against the expansion, potentially leading to legal challenges or further public scrutiny of the agency's regulatory decisions.
Want the full story? Read the original reporting
Read on The Guardian