The FDA Needs More Funding, Will to Reduce Toxins in Baby Food

Every day, consumers are exposed to toxins in the products they bring into their homes. Food, cosmetics, shampoos, and sunscreens often contain harmful chemicals or contaminants that have never been reviewed for safety.

Regulation of many of these products is largely the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration, not the Environmental Protection Agency. But for too long the FDA has lacked the resources―and the resolve―to protect consumers.

Many chemicals added to food as preservatives or flavors are deemed safe by the companies who make them, but not by the FDA. While other nations have banned hundreds of toxic chemicals from cosmetics, the FDA has banned only nine for safety reasons.

Even when the FDA concluded that some chemicals in sunscreens may not be safe, the agency failed to act. It’s time for Congress to properly fund the FDA and make sure it is carrying out its duties.

Problems in Baby Food

Perhaps the most compelling example of the FDA’s failure to keep us safe is the presence of toxic metals in baby food.

Today, 10,000 babies will start eating solid food. But baby food is often contaminated with toxic metals like lead and arsenic that can impact the developing brain.

As Bloomberg Law recently documented, these problems have been known to the FDA for decades. But the agency has been slow to act, and generations may have paid a price.

When the FDA acted to address toxic metals in agricultural products, farmers quickly responded by adjusting how and where they grow crops that can be impacted by these contaminants. When the FDA suggested lower levels for arsenic in rice cereal, farmers modified how they prepare and irrigate the soil for quick growth.

These changes have not impacted consumer prices and likely boosted confidence and sales. But, in the absence of FDA action, our farmers and food manufacturers have little incentive to make changes that reduce arsenic in rice or lead in sweet potatoes.

Commitment Without Action

When Congressional investigators found that baby food was contaminated with dangerous levels of toxic metals, the FDA committed to do more. While it’s good news that the agency is finally poised to take action, it should methodically and preemptively address risks posed by toxins, rather than wait for a crisis, to make infant health a priority.

Another compelling example of regulatory failure is the use of chemicals in food, especially in products marketed to children.

Despite the well-known risks of some food additives, manufacturers are still allowed to use chemicals of concern in everything from Skittles and Starburst to Apple Jacks and Cap’n Crunch.

Other countries have acted to ban or restrict these chemicals, but the FDA has so far failed to act.

The FDA hasn’t reviewed many of these food chemicals for safety since the 1960s and 1970s.

Almost 99% of food chemicals that have entered the food supply since 2000 were approved by chemical companies, not the FDA. It’s no wonder that consumers tell opinion researchers that food chemicals worry them as much as or more than food pathogens, and retailers are voluntarily removing some chemicals of concern from their store brands.

States have gotten involved, banning the use of toxic PFAS in food packaging.

More Boots on the Ground

Congress’s chronic failure to adequately fund the food safety program at the FDA is partly to blame. A recent report by the Reagan-Udall Foundation found that the number of FDA experts charged with ensuring the safety of our food and cosmetics has barely increased since 1978.

While other FDA centers have been flush with cash generated by industry user fees, funding for the FDA center overseeing food and cosmetic safety has barely kept pace with inflation.

More resources are badly needed. But so is more resolve to protect consumers. The same report found that cultural and structural flaws have created a bias against action.

When it comes to toxins, the FDA is the nation’s consumer product regulator. The infant formula crisis unmasked serious food safety failures of the FDA, and Commissioner Robert Califf has committed to making major reforms.

Organizational reforms that empower a single food safety leader should be among them. But simply changing roles and responsibilities will not be enough if the FDA lacks the resolve and the resources to make safety―including chemical safety―a top priority.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Author Information

Scott Faber is the senior vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental health organization.