Profit over Safety: Food Chemical Policies in the US and EU.

The use of chemicals and preservatives in food production varies significantly between the United States and the European Union, reflecting differing regulatory approaches and priorities. While both regions aim to ensure food safety and quality, the U.S. tends to balance economic efficiency with safety, whereas the EU often applies the precautionary principle more rigorously.

Regulatory Approaches

In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversee the use of chemicals in food production. Their approach often balances economic benefits and agricultural productivity with safety concerns. Conversely, the EU applies the precautionary principle, taking preventive measures when potential risks to human health or the environment are identified, even if scientific evidence is not conclusive. This difference results in stricter regulations and more bans on certain chemicals in the EU 1.

Chemicals Banned in the EU but Used in the U.S.

1. Atrazine
   • U.S. Usage: A widely used herbicide for crops like corn and sugarcane.
   • EU Ban: Banned since 2004 due to groundwater contamination and endocrine-disrupting effects, which can affect wildlife and human health 2.
   • Examples: Common in conventional corn products and corn-based processed foods.
     
2. Chlorpyrifos
   • U.S. Usage: Used on various crops, including fruits, vegetables, and nuts.
   • EU Ban: Banned in 2020 due to developmental issues in children, including potential neurodevelopmental effects 3.
   • Examples: Found in residues on produce like apples, oranges, and almonds.
     
3. Neonicotinoids
   • U.S. Usage: Commonly used insecticides.
   • EU Ban: Several neonicotinoids are banned due to their harmful effects on bee populations, crucial for pollination and agriculture 4.
   • Examples: Found in residues on crops like potatoes, tomatoes, and corn.
     
4. Paraquat
   • U.S. Usage: A widely used herbicide.
   • EU Ban: Banned in 2007 due to high toxicity and links to severe health effects, including Parkinson’s disease 5.
   • Examples: Used in conventional farming of crops such as soybeans and cotton.
     
5. Ractopamine
   • U.S. Usage: A feed additive for promoting leanness in livestock.
   • EU Ban: Banned since 1996 due to cardiovascular effects and insufficient safety data 6.
   • Examples: Found in meat products from pigs and cattle, such as pork and beef.

Preservatives in U.S. Foods and EU Restrictions

1. Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
   • U.S. Usage: Found in cereals, snack foods, and baked goods.
   • EU Ban: Restricted due to classification as a possible human carcinogen by the IARC 7.
   • Examples: Present in Kellogg’s cereals, Planters nuts, and various processed snacks.
     
2. Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)
   • U.S. Usage: Common in cereals and potato chips.
   • EU Ban: Restricted due to potential carcinogenic effects and impact on the liver and kidneys 8.
   • Examples: Found in Post cereals (e.g., Fruity Pebbles), Pringles, and various snacks.
     
3. Potassium Sorbate
   • U.S. Usage: Used in dairy products, baked goods, and salad dressings.
   • EU Restriction: Stricter usage limits due to skin allergies and potential long-term health effects 9.
   • Examples: Present in Kraft salad dressings, Yoplait yogurt, and various baked goods.
     
4. Sodium Benzoate
   • U.S. Usage: Found in soft drinks, fruit juices, and pickles.
   • EU Restriction: Limited due to the risk of forming benzene, a known carcinogen, when combined with ascorbic acid 10.
   • Examples: Common in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and various fruit juices and condiments.
     
5. Azodicarbonamide (ADA)
   • U.S. Usage: A dough conditioner in bread products.
   • EU Ban: Banned due to potential breakdown into semicarbazide, linked to cancer in animals 11.
   • Examples: Found in Subway bread, McDonald’s buns, and various commercial bread products.
     
6. Propyl Paraben
   • U.S. Usage: Preservative in tortillas and baked goods.
   • EU Ban: Banned due to endocrine-disrupting properties and reproductive health concerns 12.
   • Examples: Found in Mission tortillas and certain baked goods.
     
7. Partially Hydrogenated Oils (Trans Fats)
   • U.S. Usage: Used to extend shelf life in processed foods.
   • EU Ban: Strict limits due to the association with increased heart disease risk 13.
   • Examples: Present in older formulations of Oreo cookies, certain margarine brands, and various snack foods.

Health Risks

The potential health risks associated with these chemicals and preservatives include carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, neurodevelopmental effects, and other chronic health conditions. For instance, BHA and BHT are linked to cancer and liver toxicity 14, while neonicotinoids impact pollinators, essential for food production and ecosystem stability 15.

Economic Influence on Regulatory Decisions

The reality of economic influence on regulatory decisions in the U.S. highlights the significant role of industry interests and market dynamics. Several factors illustrate this influence:

Industry Influence and Lobbying

The agricultural and chemical industries have significant financial resources that they deploy to influence policy and regulation:

• Lobbying Expenditure: Industry groups spend millions of dollars annually on lobbying efforts to shape legislation and regulatory policies in their favor. Companies like Monsanto (now part of Bayer) and DowDuPont have historically been among the top spenders in lobbying efforts 16.
• Political Contributions: These industries also contribute to political campaigns, which can create a dependency of policymakers on industry funding, potentially leading to favorable regulatory decisions for those industries 17.

Regulatory Framework and Risk-Benefit Analysis

The FDA and other regulatory bodies conduct risk-benefit analyses to determine the acceptability of chemicals in food production:

• Economic Considerations: These analyses often include economic benefits, such as increased agricultural productivity and lower food costs, which can lead to the approval of chemicals despite potential health risks 18.
• Permissible Limits: The setting of exposure limits for chemicals often reflects a compromise between ensuring safety and maintaining economic viability for agricultural producers 19.

Technological Advancements and Market Dynamics

The drive for innovation and technological advancement in agriculture is economically motivated:

• Productivity Gains: Chemicals and technological innovations enhance productivity, allowing for more efficient food production and lower costs, which are significant economic incentives 20.
• Market Competitiveness: To remain competitive in the global market, U.S. agriculture relies on chemicals that improve crop yields and reduce losses from pests and diseases 21.

Consumer Demand and Economic Growth

Consumer preferences and market demands also influence the use of chemicals:

• Year-Round Supply: The demand for a variety of foods year-round requires the use of chemicals to extend growing seasons and preserve food quality 22.
• Cost Savings: The economic benefits of lower production costs often translate to lower prices for consumers, driving the continued use of certain chemicals 23.

Regulatory Capture and Governance

Regulatory capture is a well-documented phenomenon where regulatory agencies are influenced by the industries they regulate:

• Revolving Door: The movement of personnel between regulatory agencies and the industries they regulate can lead to policies that favor industry interests. For example, former industry executives often hold key positions in regulatory bodies and vice versa 24.
  
• Policy Influence: The close relationship between industry and regulators can result in regulations that are more lenient and supportive of industry practices 25.
  

The significant role of economic interests and industry influence in regulatory decisions regarding food safety and chemical use in the United States is not just a perception but a reality. This underscores the need for a more balanced approach that prioritizes public health and environmental sustainability alongside economic considerations. Greater transparency, stricter conflict-of-interest regulations, and enhanced public participation in the regulatory process are essential steps towards achieving this balance. Recognizing and addressing the reality of economic influence can lead to more informed and equitable food safety policies.

Sources

1. European Commission – Approval of Active Substances
2. Environmental Working Group – Atrazine Toxic Legacy
3. EFSA – Chlorpyrifos Assessment
4. European Commission – Neonicotinoids
5. PAN Europe – Paraquat Ban
6. NCBI – Ractopamine
7. IARC Monographs – BHA
8. IARC Monographs – BHT
9. EFSA Journal – Potassium Sorbate
10. EFSA Journal – Sodium Benzoate
11. EFSA Journal – Azodicarbonamide
12. EFSA Journal – Propyl Paraben
13. European Commission – Trans Fats
14. IARC Monographs – BHA
15. NCBI – Neonicotinoids
16. OpenSecrets – Federal Lobbying Clients
17. OpenSecrets – Agriculture
18. NCBI – Economic Considerations
19. NCBI – Permissible Limits
20. Springer Link – Pesticide Productivity
21. ERS USDA – Market Competitiveness (p. 15)
22. ASF – Supply and Food Preservation
23. NIH – Cost Savings
24. ScienceDirect – Regulatory Capture
25. NCBI – Policy Influence
    
    

Disclaimer

The information provided in this blog post is for informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as professional advice. The content is based on research and sources cited within the post, and while efforts have been made to ensure its accuracy, it should not be considered comprehensive or authoritative. Readers are encouraged to consult with experts or professionals in the field for specific advice and to verify the information presented here independently. The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations mentioned. Visit our terms of use.