Introduction

As someone with firsthand experience in the American food industry, I am often puzzled by the government's stance on food additives. How can a regulatory body that should be protecting public health be so lenient with substances that could potentially harm consumers? The answers lie in complex issues such as corporate influence, economic benefits, and political agendas.

Chemicals in the Food Industry: Motivations and Effects

The primary motivation behind the use of certain chemicals in food is financial gain. These additives extend the shelf-life of products, making them more appealing to consumers and distributors. For instance, preservatives and stabilizers can prevent spoilage, allowing food to be transported over longer distances with minimal waste. Additionally, flavor enhancers can increase the palatability of foods, making them more attractive to consumers.

A significant concern is the potential health risks associated with these additives. In my former role as a cook for Campbell’s Soup Company in 1975, I witnessed firsthand how low-quality, processed foods could impact health. During the formulation of TV dinners, I noticed an excessive amount of sugar and salt added to the beans and franks. When I inquired about it, the head cook explained that these additives were cheap and heavy, thus increasing the product's weight and appearance of value. However, the sugar and salt were not in the right proportion, leading to an addictive and potentially harmful mix.

The Role of FDA in Food Regulation

The FDA's stance on food additives is a stark contrast to the stringent testing and prevention protocols used by food safety organizations in other countries. Historically, the FDA has adopted a risk-based approach, assuming an additive is safe until proof of danger is presented. This approach is more lenient compared to other regulatory bodies that require comprehensive safety assessments before approving any new additive.

This difference highlights the importance of balance. While it is crucial to protect public health, economic benefits and market competition also play significant roles. Countries like Japan and the European Union have stricter testing and approval processes, leading to safer, healthier food choices for their citizens.

The Influence of Globalism and Political Forces

Many critics argue that the American government's lenient approach to food additives is influenced by powerful global interests. Figures such as Jacob Rothschild, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, and Bill Gates, along with other influential individuals, are often accused of manipulating government policies to push their agendas. For example, Bill Gates is known for his initiatives in promoting alternative protein sources, such as lab-grown meat, as a solution to global food issues.

Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, has also espoused the idea of eating bugs as a sustainable protein source. However, he has also claimed that consuming bugs is harmful and can lead to population depopulation, suggesting a hidden motive behind these claims. Such theories highlight the complex web of political and global forces that can impact public health policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the FDA's approach to food additives reflects a balance between economic benefits and public health. While the food industry aims to maximize profits and expand its market reach, regulatory bodies need to ensure that consumers are not exposed to harmful substances. This requires a more rigorous and transparent regulatory process, one that can adapt to both domestic and global challenges.

It is essential to maintain a vigilant approach to food safety, ensuring that additives are thoroughly tested and proven safe before they are introduced into the market. As consumers, we must also demand transparency and stricter regulations from our governments to protect our health and well-being.