Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Op-ed: An open letter to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner

News Feed
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health. A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe. We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work. How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day. But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment. FDA noncompliance The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion. However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.March 11, 2024Robert M Califf, M.D., CommissionerUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy CommissionerFDA Human Foods Program Dear Commissioner Califf, We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life. Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.Sincerely,Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.Scientist Emeritus and Former DirectorNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology ProgramScholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke UniversityR. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health. A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe. We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work. How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example. While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day. But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment. FDA noncompliance The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion. However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.March 11, 2024Robert M Califf, M.D., CommissionerUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy CommissionerFDA Human Foods Program Dear Commissioner Califf, We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life. Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.Sincerely,Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.Scientist Emeritus and Former DirectorNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology ProgramScholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke UniversityR. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.Professor EmeritusUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going through a major reorganization to improve efficiency and protect public health.

A recent hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability concluded that the agency stumbles from crisis to crisis, including drug shortages, tainted food and illicit tobacco scandals in recent years.

Although crises such as the contamination of baby food with heavy metals like lead and mercury gain public attention, the scientific approach used by FDA to regulate chemical additives in food is much more opaque.

While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health. The agency has fallen behind other nations’ testing and regulations and is not even following laws put in place nearly 70 years ago to keep us safe.

We are calling on FDA Commissioner, Dr. Robert M Califf, to use the agency reorganization as an opportunity to overhaul its approach to chemicals in our food and put public health at the center of its work.

How does the FDA evaluate the safety of food additives and contaminants?


Recently, the FDA published a consumer update entitled, “Is food safe if it has chemicals?” In it, the agency says that it’s the amount of a chemical in food that determines its risk to our health. They use sodium as an example.

While it largely flies under the public radar, the agency’s neglect to update its testing to reflect modern science and modern food chemical hazards is a decades-long crisis that impacts all of our health.

We need sodium to live, but too much sodium can be bad, so they publish guidance on the safe level of sodium to be consumed each day.

But many of the chemicals that wind up in our food are not required for us to live, such as bisphenols like BPA, phthalates or the group of chemicals known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”. In fact, many of these are not required for food production, but leach into food from packaging and equipment.

FDA noncompliance 


The FDA discusses how they intentionally determine an “acceptable daily intake” for a chemical that includes a safety margin. The idea is that this safety margin is so conservative that it will always protect public health.

However, we know chemicals in the diet can come from a variety of food sources and that different chemicals can have the same adverse effect. This is so well-known that the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required that FDA evaluate the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet.”

Sixty-six years later and the FDA has never complied with this part of the law. A good example: its guidance for lead in baby food, in which they set the suggested (not required) limit to be 20 parts per billion.

However, there is no safe blood level of lead, which hurts children’s brains, resulting in lower IQ and behavioral problems among other harmful effects.

It’s not just lead: recently, the Dutch risk assessment agency reported that the combined exposure to lead, methyl-mercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs and fluoride were much more potent at reducing children’s IQ than any one of these chemicals alone.

Similarly, the FDA continues to defend its ruling that current levels of BPA in food are safe despite the decision by the European Food Safety Authority, the EFSA, to reduce the “safe level” of BPA by 20,000 fold. The FDA defends its position by focusing on BPA as if it is the only chemical in foods that act like the female hormone estrogen. In contrast, it is well known that plastic food packaging contains a number of estrogen-like chemicals, like other bisphenols and phthalates, that can leach into foods.

The failure of the FDA to comply with the 1958 amendment to food safety law is not just a violation of the law but presents a significant risk to American consumers. A citizen’s petition was filed with the agency in 2020 to attempt to cajole it into compliance. The FDA has never responded.

Considering this, we wrote to Commissioner Califf to address this serious shortcoming of FDA’s Human Food Program. The Commissioner has not responded. The letter is re-printed below.


March 11, 2024
Robert M Califf, M.D., Commissioner
United States Food and Drug Administration
Cc: James Jones, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner
FDA Human Foods Program

Dear Commissioner Califf,

We read with great interest your OpEd with Dr. Warraigh entitled, “Four steps toward meeting the challenge of chronic disease” (The Hill, 02/15/24). This is a particularly important issue considering that the United States is below average compared to peer economies in 9 health domains, including adverse birth outcomes, obesity and diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung disease. And this, as you point out, is despite US taxpayers spending nearly 18% of our GDP on healthcare.

However, we are concerned that there was no mention of food-borne chemicals that are either added to food intentionally or that migrate into food from packaging or processing. The recent analysis by the New York Times of the failure of the food safety system that resulted in hundreds of children being poisoned by lead in applesauce illustrates in part how our system of food safety needs to be improved.

More important to the issue of chronic disease is that of chemicals in the food supply that are being evaluated for safety in a one-by-one approach, rather than considering the “cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet” as required by the 1958 amendment to the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

Recent studies demonstrate that the cumulative effect of Americans’ exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the food supply contributes to harmful health impacts including chronic disease, increasing healthcare costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as affecting quality of life.

Importantly, the scientific evidence is sufficient to conclude that the cumulative effects of biologically related substances in the food supply contributes to chronic diseases such as obesity or diabetes. We urge you to consider it as a critical “fifth step” in meeting the challenge of chronic disease in the United States, one that the agency is already mandated to conduct.

For example, a recent study contributed by the Dutch risk assessment agency (RIVM) in collaboration with Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, a world-leader in the analysis of cumulative risk, demonstrated that in 9 countries in the EU, their populations exceeded combined tolerable levels of exposure to a mixture of chemicals at median exposure levels. Thus, the traditional way of identifying a “Tolerable Daily Intake” using a chemical-by-chemical basis is clearly underestimating the cumulative risk of chemicals with similar structure or observable effects.

Despite the 1958 amendment requiring the FDA to evaluate cumulative effects of chemically related and biologically related substances in the diet, the agency has never performed this analysis for any chemical additives. Moreover, the FDA has not responded to citizen petitions or Congressional queries asking for the FDA to comply with the spirit and letter of this law. It simply is past time that the Agency stop ignoring the law and incorporate cumulative risk assessments in their regulatory approaches.

We ask that FDA form a committee of its Science Board including external experts to guide the agency as it addresses this shortcoming in its current safety assessment methods. When it passed the 1958 law, Congress recognized that chemicals, even ones that are not chemically related, may impact organs such as the thyroid and systems such as the cardiovascular with different mechanisms of action but cumulatively have a greater negative effect on the health of the American people.

Finally, we are happy to meet with you to provide further information and insight or to contribute to the changes that need to be made in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.
Scientist Emeritus and Former Director
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program
Scholar in Residence, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University

R. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Massachusetts Amherst

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Are Americans more obese than ever?

Obesity affects more Americans than ever. Fast food is one of the main culprits.

Fast food occupies a unique spot in the proverbial gut of America. It’s irresistibly convenient when the fridge is empty —and even when it’s full — it seduces us with consistency, incredible flavors and decent prices.While it all comes with a generous serving of guilt since we kinda know it’s bad for us, Americans can’t help themselves. Americans spent a record $490 billion on fast food in 2023, up from post-pandemic levels. Despite this, surveys consistently show that many harbor deep concerns about its nutritional value, environmental impact and the ethics of its production.This love-hate tension is all part of fast food’s complex place in our lives. A report published Thursday in the journal The Lancet revealed that 75% of Americans are now overweight or obese. While fast food is not solely to blame for that, it does raise questions about the wide availability and nutritional value of ultra-processed foods.But solving an obesity crisis is not as simple as telling people to avoid it. Not everyone who consumes fast food does it because they want to. Many Americans face challenges accessing fresh fruits and vegetables, while an increase in sedentary lifestyles due to modern working practices is not yet fully understood, according to the report. Then there are social factors that limit food choices, like food insecurity, transportation, income, employment, race, educational level and whether you’re a single parent.Attempts to address the issue are not working, noted the report’s authors.“Existing policies have failed to address overweight and obesity,” they wrote. “Without major reform, the forecasted trends will be devastating at the individual and population level, and the associated disease burden and economic costs will continue to escalate.”Obesity will result in up to $9.1 trillion in excess medical expenditures over the next 10 years, according to a June 2024 report by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee.It’s unclear if this crisis is a priority for the Trump administration, given the incoming president’s well-known love of, and brief employment at, McDonald’s. He’s also a fan of deregulation.While that chaos shakes out, let’s look at some of the leading fast-food ingredients and who let them be there.Sodium overloadThe average fast-food meal contains an alarming amount of sodium. For example, a single serving of McDonald’s fries has 230 milligrams, while a Burger King Whopper packs 911 milligrams, nearly half the recommended daily intake for adults. Consuming this much salt not only raises blood pressure but also puts us at higher risk for heart disease and stroke.Sugar and high fructose corn syrupSugary drinks and desserts dominate fast food menus. A small Wendy’s Frosty cup contains 46 grams of sugar, well above the 25-37 grams per day suggested by the American Heart Association. High-fructose corn syrup, a cheaper alternative to cane sugar, appears in sodas, sauces, and even burger buns. This ingredient has been linked to obesity and metabolic disorders.Questionable meatsWhen fast food chains claim their burgers are made with 100% beef, they’re technically correct. But that label often masks the use of unsellable cuts of meat—trimmings, connective tissue, and fat—ground together into patties. Chicken nuggets, another fast food staple, often contain a mixture of mechanically separated meat, starches, sugar, preservatives, hydrogenated oils and artificial flavorings.Artificial colorings and additivesEver wondered why fast food looks so vibrant? That’s often thanks to chemical colorings like Red 40 and Yellow 5, which have been linked to behavioral issues in children. Even “natural” options like Subway’s multigrain bread once included preservatives like azodicarbonamide—a chemical also used in yoga mats. Subway removed it after public pressure.Who Let This Happen?The fast food industry didn’t become a dietary minefield by accident. Decades of lobbying have shaped policy and regulations that some groups say prioritize corporate profits over public health.The corn lobby and high-fructose corn syrupHigh-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) owes its success to U.S. government subsidies for corn production. The Farm Bill, influenced heavily by agribusiness lobbyists, has ensured corn remains one of the most heavily subsidized crops. Between 1995 and 2020, corn subsidies amounted to over $116 billion in the U.S.This surplus of cheap corn made HFCS a low-cost alternative to sugar, leading to its widespread use in sodas, snacks, and fast food sauces. Despite links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders, HFCS remains, thanks in part to powerful lobbying by groups like the Corn Refiners Association.Meat industry lobbyistsThe meat industry has consistently pushed back against stricter regulations on safety and labeling. One infamous example is pink slime, a finely textured beef filler treated with ammonia to kill bacteria. This filler, made from low-quality trimmings squished together, sparked public outrage when first exposed in 2012.After lobbying efforts by meat processors like Cargill and Beef Products Inc., pink slime was reclassified by the USDA as ground beef, meaning it could be more widespread than before.But “pink slime” is fattier and more likely to contain pathogens than ground beef from quality cuts.FDA and additivesFood manufacturers have fought to keep artificial preservatives and additives legal despite evidence of potential health risks. For instance, Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) are preservatives used in fast food and processed goods to prevent fat from spoiling.Both are listed as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” by the National Toxicology Program, yet lobbying by food industry groups has ensured they remain approved by the FDA.

Food
Business
Crisis

What to know about HHS and how RFK Jr. could lead it

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could radically reshape the Department of Health and Human Services if he is confirmed as secretary of the agency under President-elect Trump. Why it matters: The onetime independent presidential candidate has been one of the country's most prominent vaccine skeptics for years, alarming public health experts about his nomination to lead to HHS.His appointment to HHS would also come 16 years after he was considered for a cabinet appointment by former President Obama. Obama had weighed appointing Kennedy — then an environmental lawyer — to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Kennedy's views range from cracking down on food additives to conspiracy-tinged ideas about fluoride in water.State of play: Kennedy's nomination to HHS Thursday came after weeks of speculation over what role he would play in the incoming administration.Trump promised in October he'd let Kennedy — who endorsed him after dropping his own presidential bid — "go wild" on federal oversight of food and medicine.Experts have warned that he could help erode key parts of the health care system and lead to an increase in preventable disease. Between the lines: Kennedy's selection has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill, though some in the GOP remain optimistic Kennedy will secure the requisite number of votes to be confirmed by the Senate.What is the HHS?The Department of Health and Human Services is a nearly $2 trillion agency is in charge of dispensing nearly 25% of the federal budget and employs more than 80,000 federal workers.HHS encompasses other departments that approve new medications, conduct infectious disease research and contribute to other public health services.It includes departments whose work touch on immigration, child support and adults with disabilities.HHS also processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, allowing journalists and other members of the public to request records from the federal government.What departments fall under HHS?HHS encompasses 13 operating divisions. Americans may be familiar with the FDA, CDC and NIH — particularly after the COVID pandemic — but other lesser known divisions can still impact their everyday lives.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with regulating new drugs and medical devices, approves new vaccines, and ensures the safety of the food supply. After the 2022 Dobbs decision, the FDA has also helped make medication abortion more accessible. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) helps respond to infectious disease outbreaks like the bird flu and the COVID-19 pandemic. It also tracks food-borne illnesses like E. coli and listeria.The Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) overseas health insurance programs that benefit millions of Americans nationwide.The Office of Refugee Resettlement helps support refugees, unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers who are in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health oversees vaccine and other biomedical research, like cancer research. It includes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which was headed by Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Administration for Children and Families helps fund foster care and Head Start child care programs across the country.What could Kennedy's appointment mean for Americans?As head of a large and influential agency, Kennedy could begin implementing some elements of his "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.Kennedy has previously outlined plans to clear out entire departments from health care agencies, such as the FDA's nutrition department, in a bid to root out unspecified "corruption." He also said he would advise water districts against using fluoride, a mineral that occurs naturally in water but is often added to the water supply to help prevent tooth decay.He has also expressed interest in pausing drug development and infectious disease research at NIH for eight years, in favor of studying chronic disease. Zoom in: Kennedy has repeatedly denied that he is anti-vaccine and said he won't take away any vaccines from Americans. But he's continued to promote unbacked claims about vaccines causing various illnesses.He is also a proponent of drinking raw, unpasteurized milk, which both the FDA and CDC warn come with serious health risks. As the head of HHS, Kennedy would be able to initiate the roll back of the FDA's raw milk regulations.Go deeper:What to know about RFK Jr.'s positions on vaccines, drugs and health careHow RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement could shake up public healthWhat a Trump-empowered RFK Jr. could do on health care

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could radically reshape the Department of Health and Human Services if he is confirmed as secretary of the agency under President-elect Trump. Why it matters: The onetime independent presidential candidate has been one of the country's most prominent vaccine skeptics for years, alarming public health experts about his nomination to lead to HHS.His appointment to HHS would also come 16 years after he was considered for a cabinet appointment by former President Obama. Obama had weighed appointing Kennedy — then an environmental lawyer — to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Kennedy's views range from cracking down on food additives to conspiracy-tinged ideas about fluoride in water.State of play: Kennedy's nomination to HHS Thursday came after weeks of speculation over what role he would play in the incoming administration.Trump promised in October he'd let Kennedy — who endorsed him after dropping his own presidential bid — "go wild" on federal oversight of food and medicine.Experts have warned that he could help erode key parts of the health care system and lead to an increase in preventable disease. Between the lines: Kennedy's selection has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill, though some in the GOP remain optimistic Kennedy will secure the requisite number of votes to be confirmed by the Senate.What is the HHS?The Department of Health and Human Services is a nearly $2 trillion agency is in charge of dispensing nearly 25% of the federal budget and employs more than 80,000 federal workers.HHS encompasses other departments that approve new medications, conduct infectious disease research and contribute to other public health services.It includes departments whose work touch on immigration, child support and adults with disabilities.HHS also processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, allowing journalists and other members of the public to request records from the federal government.What departments fall under HHS?HHS encompasses 13 operating divisions. Americans may be familiar with the FDA, CDC and NIH — particularly after the COVID pandemic — but other lesser known divisions can still impact their everyday lives.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with regulating new drugs and medical devices, approves new vaccines, and ensures the safety of the food supply. After the 2022 Dobbs decision, the FDA has also helped make medication abortion more accessible. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) helps respond to infectious disease outbreaks like the bird flu and the COVID-19 pandemic. It also tracks food-borne illnesses like E. coli and listeria.The Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) overseas health insurance programs that benefit millions of Americans nationwide.The Office of Refugee Resettlement helps support refugees, unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers who are in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health oversees vaccine and other biomedical research, like cancer research. It includes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which was headed by Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Administration for Children and Families helps fund foster care and Head Start child care programs across the country.What could Kennedy's appointment mean for Americans?As head of a large and influential agency, Kennedy could begin implementing some elements of his "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.Kennedy has previously outlined plans to clear out entire departments from health care agencies, such as the FDA's nutrition department, in a bid to root out unspecified "corruption." He also said he would advise water districts against using fluoride, a mineral that occurs naturally in water but is often added to the water supply to help prevent tooth decay.He has also expressed interest in pausing drug development and infectious disease research at NIH for eight years, in favor of studying chronic disease. Zoom in: Kennedy has repeatedly denied that he is anti-vaccine and said he won't take away any vaccines from Americans. But he's continued to promote unbacked claims about vaccines causing various illnesses.He is also a proponent of drinking raw, unpasteurized milk, which both the FDA and CDC warn come with serious health risks. As the head of HHS, Kennedy would be able to initiate the roll back of the FDA's raw milk regulations.Go deeper:What to know about RFK Jr.'s positions on vaccines, drugs and health careHow RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement could shake up public healthWhat a Trump-empowered RFK Jr. could do on health care

Food
Government
Health

Op-ed: What a Second Trump Administration Could Mean for Your Food

First, food prices could increase. A lot. And this time, food inflation will be driven by food policy choices, not by the Covid-19 pandemic. After the role food prices played in the election, some might wonder why Trump would place tariffs on food imports, which could increase food prices if the costs are passed along […] The post Op-ed: What a Second Trump Administration Could Mean for Your Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

None of Trump’s supporters voted for food that costs more and is less safe. Nevertheless, a second Trump administration could be a disaster for eaters, farmers, food and farm workers, and provide a windfall for the largest food and farm interests. Here’s why. First, food prices could increase. A lot. And this time, food inflation will be driven by food policy choices, not by the Covid-19 pandemic. After the role food prices played in the election, some might wonder why Trump would place tariffs on food imports, which could increase food prices if the costs are passed along to consumers. But that’s not all he might do. The Trump team might also reduce food assistance for poor people, as House Republicans have already proposed. A Mexican agricultural worker cultivates lettuce on a farm in Holtville, California. (Photo by John Moore, Getty Images) Deporting food and farm workers, as Trump has pledged, could also increase the cost of producing food (and be devastating for families and rural communities). In combination, tariffs on food and farm products, reducing food assistance, and driving up labor costs could be a food affordability triple whammy for many of the people who just helped put Trump back in office. “If Trump truly wants to ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ he will ban toxic pesticides and food chemicals, put warning labels on junk food, and require farmers to test for pathogens before they water their crops.” Second, the people who feed us could lose important workplace protections. The COVID-19 pandemic unmasked the harm food and farm workers face, but that might not stop the Trump team from weakening labor standards. Many of the people who feed us are not only at risk of being deported, they may also have fewer legal protections at work if industry lobbyists are placed in key positions at the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture. Even if Trump fails to deliver on promised deportations, food and farm workers will live and work in constant fear—and face increased harassment. Third, as hard as it is to imagine, our diets could get worse. While Trump and some of his supporters have pledged to “Make America Healthy Again,” the industry lobbyists who will likely run the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could instead weaken school nutrition standards (as Trump tried to do during his first term), reverse plans to require a warning label on junk food, weaken proposed limits on “healthy claims” on food packages, reduce access to local food sources like farmers’ markets, and replace nutrition science with pseudoscience. Fourth, despite Trump’s pledges to the contrary, our food and tap water could be filled with toxic pesticides and pathogens. The Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency banned toxic pesticides, including most uses of chlorpyrifos. The first Trump administration reversed a ban of chlorpyrifos, and a second Trump administration could reverse the ban again—and undo other recent chemical safety progress, including efforts to tackle toxic “forever chemicals.” The next Trump administration could also increase the risk of pathogens by reversing proposals to address salmonella in chicken as a favor to Big Meat. Fifth, the new Trump team could gut voluntary programs to help farmers get their farms “climate ready” and reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Climate pollution from farming could account for 38 percent of U.S. emissions by 2050—up from 10 percent today. That’s more likely  if the incoming administration diverts funding for reducing emissions and instead funds infrastructure projects like irrigation pipelines. The same voluntary practices that reduce emissions can also help farms withstand extreme weather. If funding is cut, farms could become more vulnerable. That’s not the only way a second Trump term could make things worse for most farmers. Tariffs will be bad for farmers because important overseas markets will be lost. Not only that, efforts to address monopoly control of the things farmers buy—like seeds, chemicals, and equipment—and monopoly control of the places farmers sell their goods will likely grind to a halt. If the past is prologue, the Trump team will raid USDA’s coffers to help disburse billions to the largest, most successful farmers and once again leave smaller farmers, especially farmers of color, with no safety net. Whether election-year pledges to “Make America Healthy Again” will produce a meaningful change remains to be seen. What’s clear is that no one voted for higher food prices, more hunger, increased diet-related disease, or more toxic pesticides and pathogens in our food–including most Republican voters. Public opinion research shows strong bipartisan support for anti-hunger programs, protecting workers, keeping food safe, and helping farmers address climate change. Handy Kennedy, founder of AgriUnity cooperative, feeds his cows on HK Farms on April 20, 2021 in Cobbtown, Georgia. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago, Getty Images) While the election shows we may not agree on everything, everyone agrees that our food should be affordable, safe, and produced in ways that protect our workers and our neighbors. Everyone, that is, except for the industry lobbyists who may soon be running the federal agencies charged with protecting us. Some of us will be able to choose organic or buy water filters. Others will live in states where state policymakers will continue to step in to protect us. But most of us—especially most of the voters who elected Trump—will be unprotected from higher prices and food and water that can make us sick. Counting on health gurus and other false prophets will be no substitute for the hard work that lays ahead. If Trump truly wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” he will ban toxic pesticides and food chemicals, put warning labels on junk food, and require farmers to test for pathogens before they water their crops. He will help farmers prepare their farms for extreme weather and avoid becoming a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. He will not only ensure that people have enough to eat, but also that they have more healthy food choices and fewer foods with misleading health claims. And he will make sure that the people who feed us aren’t living in fear or putting their own health and safety in jeopardy. The post Op-ed: What a Second Trump Administration Could Mean for Your Food appeared first on Civil Eats.

Food
Agriculture
Climate

NZ’s food manufacturers are embracing the idea of a circular economy but are slow to implement it

New Zealand food manufacturers are beginning to embrace the circular economy but are up against a lack of government support, customer awareness and low-emission freight options.

Getty ImagesAround the world, the growth of industry and consumption has escalated environmental damage through increased emissions, waste and pollution from landfills. The current linear economic model, characterised by a “take-make-dispose” approach to limited resources, is increasingly shown to be unsustainable. New Zealand’s food manufacturing industry is a major contributor to these issues. However, an alternative, more sustainable, approach exists in the circular economic model. We have explored six large food manufacturing companies in Aotearoa New Zealand committed to circular-economy practices. We wanted to understand if and how they prioritise the four circular elements of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering. We identified a variety of drivers and barriers to implementing circularity. This includes consumer knowledge, government regulation, supply-chain issues and financial commitment. Overall, we found New Zealand food manufacturers are slow to take positive steps in all areas. They lack a working knowledge of circular processes and the old linear model still holds sway. New Zealand context We found New Zealand food manufacturers are beginning to embrace the circular economy but there is still a long way to go for them to close the loop. The current focus is mainly on three elements (reducing, reusing and recycling), but they pay less attention to recovering materials. Food manufacturers are moving towards a more circular model of resource use but face barriers and lack of awareness among customers. CC BY-SA In practice, reduction involves minimising the use of resources and avoiding unnecessary waste. Here the focus is on reducing the quantity of raw materials without compromising on quality. Reusing extends the life of products and materials by finding new purposes such as refurbishing or repairing items to prevent them from becoming waste. This is especially the case with packaging materials which can be reused, recycled or composted. Recycling refers to the process of collecting, sorting and processing materials to manufacture new products. This reduces the demand for new raw materials. For example, fruits past their use-by dates can be turned into pickles and perfumes. Recovery extracts energy or other useful resources from waste materials that cannot be recycled. For example, withered flowers and spoiled fruits are turned into biomethane for energy production. This is New Zealand’s weakest link in the adoption of the circular economy. Thousands of single-use cups are still used and thrown out. Getty Images Barriers to circularity Food manufacturers told us they face multiple barriers imposed by local and offshore factors, including a lack of awareness of circular-economy principles among consumers and industry. Research participants noted that local consumers are concerned more with price than circularity. People prefer cheaper products despite their negative environmental impact. All companies we studied expressed this perspective. One participant said: A major and continuing challenge for us, and our industry, is that of the single-use takeaway cup. Despite our best efforts to encourage and support our customers to sit in and enjoy their coffee, or bring their cups, we still distribute thousands of cups every year. Changing their mindset around it is still difficult. Offshore, major trading partners in China and Japan prefer plastic packaging for their products. The food manufacturers we studied found these trading partners valued appearance and presentation first, before environmental impacts. All companies reported being confronted with regulatory barriers. This includes lack of government support such as rebates and subsidies or robust circular-economy policies. There is no comprehensive framework on how businesses make decisions and investments. This calls for policy revisions to help companies implement robust circular-economy practices. Drivers for change The COVID pandemic had a significant economic impact in slowing down the implementation of circular practices due to supply-chain disruptions. This comes on the back of transportation challenges, a lack of low-emission freight options and increases in living costs. Based on our findings, we offer suggestions to support managers and policymakers to achieve sustainability in the food manufacturing sector. First, policymakers can play an important role through laws, regulations, fiscal incentives, public funding and a flexible legislative framework that supports circular-economy strategies. Such measures are crucial for reducing uncertainty and encouraging investment in circular practices. Second, we advise companies to concentrate on education and raising awareness among consumers about the long-term benefits of the circular economy. This is a much more urgent agenda than focusing on regulatory, technological or supply-chain issues. Policy and regulation change will happen in response to changing consumer preferences and patterns. Third, because educating the public at home and abroad is not an easy fix, companies need to collaborate with each other across all parts of the food manufacturing industry, including retailers and manufacturers. Mindsets and practices among New Zealand businesses need to shift from a linear model towards receiving training in circular-economy practices and education in sustainability and to be able to make changes for future generations. Sitong Michelle Chen works for AUT Business School, Department of Marketing and International Business. She receives funding from North Asia CAPE.

Food
Government
Education

In a record-breaking drought, bush birds from around Perth flocked to the city

Months of hot and dry weather, with only 23mm of rain recorded over seven months, drove some species to seek food and water in the city.

Western spinebill Martin Pelanek/ShutterstockPerth is no stranger to hot and dry summers, but the period from October 2023 to April 2024 was exceptional. The city’s rainfall for these seven months was only 23 millimetres, the lowest since records began in the 1870s. It was also one of the warmest summers on record, with temperatures 1.7°C higher than the long-term average. The “canary in the coalmine” is a metaphor for an early warning that something is wrong. In this case, though, it wasn’t the birds that first alerted us. Rather, we saw the drought’s impacts on our iconic and unique vegetation. Jarrah, marri, karri and banksia trees, some as old as 100 years, began to die. The die-offs created a mosaic of brown patches across 1,000 kilometres of south-west Australia’s otherwise green forest. The region’s ecosystems are diverse and complex. As the drought took hold, there were more subtle changes beyond the visible tree deaths. Perth has a community of avid birdwatchers who began noticing bird species rarely seen in the city, or known to be infrequent visitors. We analysed bird observation data from the global citizen science platform, eBird, to determine which species had increased in the Perth metropolitan area at this time. We found a dramatic spike in reporting rates for four species – the black-shouldered kite, black-tailed nativehen, tawny-crowned honeyeater and western spinebill. Some species were reported up to nine times more than usual. Birds sought refuge in the city These shifts hint at how extreme weather can push wildlife into new and unexpected spaces. The black-shouldered kite, a nomadic bird of prey, is often found in heath and woodlands in south-western Australia, as well as in rural landscapes. The black-tailed nativehen is more commonly associated with inland wetlands but is known to appear suddenly in large numbers in new habitats and then disappear just as quickly. Honeyeaters, such as the tawny-crowned honeyeater and the western spinebill, tend to favour coastal heathlands and forests. So why were they turning up in Perth city? We suggest it’s likely because the drought stripped their usual habitats of vital resources, particularly food and water. The city, on the other hand, although also hot and dry at this time, had water in remnant wetlands, the Swan River, artificial lakes and ponds, and people’s gardens. These areas may also have nectar-rich plants for the honeyeaters, insect populations perhaps eaten by the black-tailed nativehen, and rodents or rabbits for the black-shouldered-kite. We think these urban environments became temporary refuges, providing a different water and food source for these birds. A long history of bird immigration This isn’t the first time birds have flocked to Perth during challenging environmental conditions. Galahs, for example, were confined historically to inland areas. Early explorers such as John Gould and John Forrest noted their absence around the Swan River colony. They weren’t common in this area until after the second world war, following a series of dry years. In many cities in Australia, cockatoos are known to take advantage of watered lawns, sports fields, parks and artificial lakes in cities. These resources have created a novel urban habitat for these birds. This also happens in rural towns. Parrots, birds of prey and our beloved “bin chickens” (white ibis) have increased in these towns as inland rainfall declines. The short-term movement of species such as the black-shouldered kite, western spinebill and tawny-crowned honeyeater into cities represents a new chapter in this urban immigration story. Perhaps we should expect more drought migrants as the climate crisis continues to impact their natural habitats. On the front-line of climate change South-west Western Australia is a global biodiversity hotspot. It is also considered one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world. In Perth, annual rainfall has decreased by around 130mm (15%). That’s a drop from about 860mm to 730mm over the past 30 years (1993–2023) compared to the previous 30 years (1959–1988). This long-term drying trend, combined with rising temperatures, puts immense pressure on the ecosystems local wildlife depends on. The drought event of 2023–24 may be a precursor of what’s to come. More research is needed to understand the movements of birds and other wildlife in response to these events. To the relief of those watching the landscape turn brown, it started raining in May 2024. We bought ourselves a rain gauge to celebrate, and waited to see what the next months of eBird data would reveal. The data showed all four drought immigrants retreated from the city almost as quickly as they had arrived. This movement supported the theory that these birds were using the city only as a temporary refuge during the harshest drought months. Observations of unusual bird behaviour highlight the complex relationship between wildlife and urban environments under climate stress. While cities may offer some refuge, they are not a long-term solution for wildlife facing habitat loss. Indeed, the spread of urban areas poses its own major threats to bird communities. As the climate crisis intensifies, integrating urban areas into conservation plans could be crucial for supporting species during extreme events. Individuals, councils and urban planners may be able to increase the quality of the refuges in cities in relatively simple ways. Planting more native vegetation and providing safe water sources for visiting wildlife would be a good start. Harry Moore receives funding from the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Anna Cresswell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Food
Water
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

Swallowtail - An Apprenticeship Story

Swallowtail: An Apprenticeship Story follows six young aspiring farmers as they navigate the rollercoaster season of 2019-2020 in North Central Florida. The film centers on the thoughts and experiences of these apprentices who leave home to live at Swallowtail Farm and how the COVID-19 pandemic turned an already challenging learning experience into an unprecedented one. Throughout their journey, they reflect on issues of food security, sustainability practices, and community.

Agriculture
Food
Youth

From Tide to Table: Two Docks Shellfish

Clams have been called the perfect protein - let's find out why. From harvest through the processing facility, to the delivery to a restaurant, we find out what it takes to get clams on your plate.

Food
Documentary

Together We Grow

Together We Grow is a 40-minute documentary telling the story of Common Unity, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Introducing a thriving hub helping to build resilience into its local community by growing, sewing, repairing, sharing – you name it, Common Unity is doing it! Too many of our communities, here and around the world, are facing housing crises, food insecurity, social isolation, and more. In addition, the multiple impacts of the Covid pandemic and climate change are current and ongoing. How can we most effectively confront these challenges, and help our communities thrive in an economic system that leaves many feeling trapped in poverty? Founder Julia Milne and her team have created a completely replicable model for developing strong, connected, resilient communities – a model that could be put in place across thousands of communities in Aotearoa and millions of communities across the world. They’ve proven it can be done, this film was made to help them share the story!

Social Justice
Food
Agriculture

Modern Nature

By 2050, 10 billion people may inhabit Earth. Do we need GMOs to Feed the World? Is organic production the answer? Modern Nature takes the viewer on a worldwide odyssey to find answers. Includes perspectives from philosopher Noam Chomsky, physicist Vandana Shiva and street farmer Ron Finley.

Food
Agriculture
Business

Kumu Niu

The island of O'ahu is covered with coconut palms, but for fear of liability the vast majority of these sacred trees have been stripped of coconuts. The grassroots movement "Niu Now" is on a mission to restore the "niu," or coconut, as a fundamental food crop in Hawai'i and spread the Indigenous wisdom of "aloha 'āina:" loving land and serving people.

Land Use
Indigenous
Food

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.