American food: Made to make us sick

Titanium dioxide, potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxyanisole, brominated vegetable oil and color dyes: just a few food additives that are banned in Europe, but still used in the United States, according to Becky Upham’s article on Everyday Health. These additives have all been researched and found to do or pose possible harm in areas including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive harm, nervous system damage and behavioral issues. So why are these things still allowed in our food? 

Profit. A key difference between the United States and Europe is that the U.S. food industry has a very strong lobbying presence. Christopher Doering notes in his article on FoodDive, that 30 companies including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola and General Mills spend close to $40 million a year on lobbying efforts. So, it’s no surprise that government food regulations and policy are more concerned with benefitting these industries rather than benefiting America's health.

An investigation done by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), on a law requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to account for cumulative health effects when allowing a new chemical in food, found that only one of 900 safety determinations was adequately considered.

This finding was corroborated by Jaydee Hanson—policy director at Center for Food Safety—“Instead of requiring food manufacturers to notify FDA whenever new chemical substances are added to our food, FDA allows these manufacturers to self-certify in secret that their additives are safe,” a statement which contributes to the sentiment that neither the FDA nor the public understands the true cumulative effects of many chemical additives.

These manipulations are also made in our dietary guidelines, which cut out or add information that benefits profitable industries. Guidelines are issued by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) based on reports from experts in the field of health and nutrition, but according to Markham Heid’s TIME article, the final guidelines often deviate substantially from initial recommendations. Of course, because the guidelines are then open to lobbying, as the USDA’s primary stakeholders are major food producers and manufacturers. 

One example is that of red meat, given concerns with red meat in which initial reports advised eating a lower amount due to heavy consumption being linked to heart disease, cancer and premature death. In the final report, red meat was listed as a protein source in elements of a healthy eating pattern, most likely due to the meat industry’s historically big influence on the USDA.

Another huge contributor to this is the fact that American healthcare is not free and is actually among the highest costing in the world. Not only are unhealthy ingredients being allowed for profit—long-term health effects generate more profit when a person needs medical care. Laura Reiley explains in her article for The Washington Post that healthcare costs could be reduced by $250 billion if diet related diseases were reduced to similar rates in countries such as Canada.

Now, we have all this information, but what can we do about it? The most prominent action is to advocate for and support better food regulation and more funding for healthy crops. It’s time to stop faulting people for poor food choices when those options are often the only attainable ones. Of course, if you can, pay more attention to ingredients and opt for choices without bad additives, but overall, we need to strive for good food to be accessible in America. Our health needs to come before money.