RFK Jr. is targeting a decades-old loophole allowing chemicals in food supply
By Adele Rutherford ·
The American food supply, it seems, is governed by an elaborate system of self-assessment and voluntary compliance.
The Illusion of Self-Regulation
The American food supply, it seems, is governed by an elaborate system of self-assessment and voluntary compliance. For decades, this mechanism—the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) framework, put in place back in 1958—has allowed manufacturers to determine whether a new ingredient was safe for its intended use without requiring federal premarket review. The result, according to reports from Bloomberg Law, is that the list of permitted substances has ballooned to over ten thousand items. This voluntary system, which allows companies to self-certify safety, represents a profound regulatory shortcut and, frankly, an abdication of governmental duty.
The current flurry of activity—spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who cited the alarming fact that "Nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods"—is ostensibly aimed at fixing this loophole. The proposed rule, which requires manufacturers to notify the FDA whenever they determine an ingredient qualifies for GRAS status, appears on the docket from both CNBC and statnews.com. Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas stated that if finalized, this would formally transition the framework "from a voluntary program to a mandatory notification system." This is, at face value, progress.
The Machinery of Transparency
The proponents of this reform—including HHS spokespersons who called GRAS reform the "preeminent regulatory reform"—argue that transparency alone will solve the problem. They claim it will give the FDA a clearer log of every chemical ingested through food. Indeed, the proposal mandates that companies not only notify the agency when they introduce new substances but also provide details on how they reached their safety conclusions.
Yet, even as this process is being reformed, significant procedural gaps remain glaringly obvious. The Guardian pointed out that while the FDA has proposed a rule for ingredients, it conspicuously skips defining "ultra-processed" foods—a definition HHS and USDA had jointly requested in July 2025 to tackle the systemic issue of chronic disease. Furthermore, critics like Professor Marion Nestle rightly questioned whether mandatory notification truly restores safety when, as she noted, "the company is still responsible for the science and will still be hiring its own experts to say the additive is safe."
When Procedure Fails the Public Trust
This entire regulatory dance—this attempt to build a robust system of public logging onto an inherently flawed foundation of industry self-determination—is deeply troubling. The history of chemical intervention teaches us that initial utility does not equate to permanent safety, and that systemic risk often emerges from accumulation, not single instances. We must look back at the DDT ban. This organochloride was initially celebrated for its efficacy against malaria and typhus during the mid-century public health campaigns. It was a clear, beneficial chemical tool. Yet, its widespread use led to unforeseen environmental and biological harm through systemic toxicity—a pattern of initial benefit masking long-term regulatory failure.
The proposed GRAS reform only addresses disclosure; it does not fundamentally restructure the power dynamic that allows industry to dictate safety standards in the first place. The history of DDT proves that when a chemical’s use is divorced from comprehensive, independent oversight, its eventual cost—to the environment and to public health—is catastrophic. We cannot afford another regulatory shortcut based on trust rather than proof.
The law requires more than just an inventory; it demands genuine scientific control. Until Congress steps in and establishes an independent body with true authority over chemical safety assessments, allowing industry to merely notify us of its own conclusions is nothing short of a procedural charade that leaves the public vulnerable to the next unforeseen systemic poison.