Apple sauce containing lead. Onions carrying E. coli. Deli meat spreading listeria. The past year has seen alert after alert from US public health officials warning of contamination in the food supply, both in packaged and prepared foods. Going to the grocery store â or even out to eat â has seemingly become a real gamble.
But lately, much of the public worry over food safety has been hijacked by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Donald Trumpâs recent pick to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services â a role in which, if appointed, he would be responsible for overseeing the regulation of much of the US food industry. Kennedy has long pointed the spotlight in the wrong direction: for years he has crusaded against food additives and dyes, calling them âtoxinsâ and âpoisonsâ.
âIf we took all of these chemicals out, our nation would get healthier immediately,â he claimed in September, suggesting that doing so would reduce sick days, decrease anxiety, lower cancer rates and help people lose weight and live longer. But there is little evidence to support the idea that this would significantly improve public health. And the focus on food additives distracts from a much more established threat: the foodborne illnesses that sicken 48 million people and claim 3000 lives in the US each year.
Advertisement
âWe can debate the potential and theoretical [risks of food additives], but we cannot forget this aspect of infectious disease, which we know does lead to actual illnesses, actual hospitalisations and actual deaths,â says at North Carolina State University.
The US has faced several major foodborne outbreaks this year. In July, a listeria outbreak linked to sliced deli meats sickened . Since October, have fallen ill with Escherichia coli after eating contaminated onions served on McDonaldâs hamburgers, and one person has died. Most recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that â one of whom died â contracted E. coli from bagged carrots. This has led to questions around US food safety and whether the countryâs food poses a greater risk than that of other nations.
While data for 2024 isnât yet available, indicates that foodborne illnesses have ticked upwards. Infections from five of the eight foodborne pathogens tracked by the CDC increased in 2023. However, the agency says the spike may be due to the expanded use of more sensitive diagnostic tests, which might be identifying cases that would have previously gone undetected.
Last year also marked a five-year high for food and drink recalls, with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pulling more than 500 products from shelves. Meat and poultry recalls also reached a four-year high, with more than 1800 tonnes of products removed from the market in 2023 â double the amount recalled in 2022.
Early data from 2024 suggests this upward trend is continuing. In January alone, the FDA issued 46 food and drink recalls â a 30 per cent increase over the monthly average from the last quarter of 2023. After undeclared allergens, bacterial contamination was the second leading cause for recalls.
The US isnât the only place seeing this trend. Food and drink recalls also reached a 10-year high in Europe last year, with more than across the UK and EU. Contamination from pesticides was the primary reason for recalls, followed by bacterial contamination.
While around 14 per cent of the US population is sickened each year from foodborne illness, just 3.5 per cent of the UK population is sickened this way each year. Taken alongside the far higher number of recalls in Europe, it might seem that US public health officials simply arenât taking as much care to keep foodborne illnesses at bay. But the numbers are misleading.
âItâs not that our systems are all that different,â says Chapman, noting that many high-income countries share similar food inspection processes. Rather, overall rates of foodborne illness differ largely due to variations in how countries monitor and report cases.
For instance, a study published last year found that estimates of foodborne disease are broadly comparable across when using the same 28-day telephone recall survey. The UK also has a higher bar for counting a foodborne illness: in the US, digestive symptoms need only persist for more than a day, whereas in the UK they have to last for weeks to count. âWeâre not comparing apples to apples,â says Chapman.
Additives and dyes
Increased vigilance around foodborne illnesses has bled into worries over food additives and dyes, as well as the health concerns around ultra-processed foods (UPFs).
And there is some merit to the claim that UPFs contribute to chronic disease. Numerous studies have linked these foods to obesity, heart disease, cancer, depression and type 2 diabetes â however, many establish a correlation, not clear causation.
The strongest evidence to date that UPFs contribute to chronic disease comes from a randomised, controlled trial of 20 adults that found a , which suggests that a continued UPF-heavy diet could lead to obesity.
However, it still isnât clear what, exactly, about UPFs leads to weight gain. âIs it the processing? Is it the ingredients? Is it simply that it is higher in fats and sugar?â says at Cornell University in New York. Answering those questions is critical, otherwise we risk steering people away from UPFs that can be nutritious, such as wholegrain breads and breakfast cereals. For instance, a 2021 study estimated that removing UPFs from the diets of 12,000 people living in Australia would significantly reduce their intake of key nutrients such as thiamine, folate and iron, even when replacing them with non-processed alternatives.
Another common concern with the US food supply involves additives and dyes. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of people in the US believe the average person is exposed to additives in their daily foods that pose a serious health risk.
Much of this suspicion stems from the FDAâs relatively hands-off approach to regulating food ingredients. In the US, manufacturers can introduce substances into foods without FDA authorisation, provided the ingredients are classified as âgenerally recognized as safeâ. This designation means that qualified experts agree there is sufficient publicly available data demonstrating a substanceâs safety under intended conditions of use. If such data isnât publicly available, manufacturers must submit evidence to the FDA for review.
This approach contrasts with that of other high-income countries. The European Food Safety Authority evaluates all additives before they enter the food supply. As a result, the US allows nearly 4000 food additives, whereas only around 300 are authorised in the EU.
Yet that doesnât necessarily mean that the US food supply is riskier. â[These compounds] were subjected to careful studies and scrutiny that suggest they are, in general, safe,â says Kersten. âThatâs how I reason as a scientist, and I would apply that to my own food intake.â
However, the FDAâs approach isnât foolproof. For example, this year the agency banned brominated vegetable oil â used to prevent citrus flavouring from separating in drinks â citing concerns about its effect on the thyroid. The UK and EU prohibited the substance in 1970 and 2008, respectively.
Not all regulatory differences favour other countries. Some food additives, particularly colourings, are permitted in the EU but not in the US. For instance, , nine of which are synthetic, are authorised in Europe yet banned in the US. It is also a misconception that additives like are only available in the US. These dyes are also permitted in Europe and the UK, though products containing them must include a warning label about potential effects on childrenâs attention.
So, ultimately, people shouldnât worry too much about food additives. âFor us nutritionists, these discussions about additives are always a little bit frustrating because you feel like, why is everybody focusing on the mouse [in the room] while ignoring the big elephant?â says Kersten. âThere are components in our diet that have been clearly demonstrated to be carcinogenic, alcohol being one of them. Yet instead of saying, âIâm going to stop drinking beer or wineâ, it is easier to find a scapegoat in these additives.â
Rising recalls may continue
More scrutiny on the US food system is needed, but it is also going to increase the number of recalls that make the news, as it has this year. Even so, Chapman says that the recent spike isnât out of the ordinary. âWhat weâre experiencing right now is well within the range of what we would expect to experience based on the data of the last 15 years,â he says. âFood has probably never been safer in the US, but we should continue to try to make it even safer.â
This is especially true given that fresh produce â the very foods that people need to eat more of to reduce chronic disease â is the .
Both the US and countries in Europe are already taking steps to enhance the safety of the food supply. For instance, the European Food Safety Authority has suggested creating clear guidelines about the use of water disinfecting treatments in the handling and processing of fruits and vegetables post-harvest. Water used for this poses a for introducing contaminants to the food supply.
Pathogens can taint food through other avenues as well. Bacteria in the faeces of birds, rodents and other wildlife can contaminate crops. Germs can spread when food workers donât wash their hands properly or when they donât adequately clean manufacturing equipment. Because there are so many possible points of contamination, Chapman says each outbreak is usually its own unique situation. It is also difficult to identify the exact cause. The FDA often can only narrow an outbreak down to two, three or four potential sources, he says.
That is why the agency has been working to enhance the tracking through the supply chain. The effort is borne out of the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act, but doesnât come into effect until January 2026. Still, many companies have already started complying, keeping records and metrics of where their products go. This enabled the FDA to identify cinnamon in apple sauce as the source of lead poisoning in children, says Chapman.
While improving traceability doesnât directly prevent contamination, it can limit the scope of an outbreak, says Chapman. It also helps companies implement mitigation measures to prevent similar outbreaks in the future, he says.
