Toxic Truth: Why Kennedy’s Concerns About Chemicals in Food Deserve Serious Attention

[Social Media]

 

Toxic Truth: Why Kennedy’s Concerns About Chemicals in Food Deserve Serious Attention

 

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has drawn both attention and criticism for his assertion that synthetic chemicals in the American food supply are fueling a nationwide crisis of obesity and chronic illness. “A facade of normalcy has masked this meteoric rise in chronic disease, and we can no longer ignore it,” Kennedy stated recently, announcing his goal of removing nine petroleum-based synthetic food dyes from U.S. products within 18 months.

 

Kennedy’s broader reputation for promoting dubious science, especially around vaccines, autism, and fluoride, makes his latest claims an easy target for skepticism. Yet on the issue of chemicals in food, his warnings may be closer to the truth than many are willing to admit. In fact, the reality may be even more troubling than he suggests.

 

Roughly 10,000 additives—ranging from dyes and preservatives to pesticides and packaging chemicals—are permitted in food sold in the United States. These substances are especially prevalent in the ultraprocessed foods that now account for most of the calories consumed by Americans. The regulatory process that allows this is far more lenient in the U.S. than in Europe, where new food chemicals are treated as potentially unsafe until proven otherwise through rigorous review.

 

In the U.S., many food additives make it to market through a loophole known as GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe.” Under this designation, companies can introduce new chemicals without prior FDA approval as long as their own hired experts deem them safe. These companies are encouraged—but not required—to inform the FDA, leading to a system where regulators may not even know which chemicals are in widespread use. Estimates suggest that the identities of around 1,000 such chemicals remain unknown to federal agencies. Kennedy has pledged to close the GRAS loophole as part of his broader food safety initiative.

 

Even when the FDA does conduct safety assessments, the scope of their evaluations is limited. Most studies look for direct toxic effects—like cancer or organ damage—in animals or lab settings. They often ignore how chronic exposure over time, or the interactions between multiple chemicals, might impact human health in more subtle but significant ways. As researcher Maricel Maffini puts it, “F.D.A. is stuck on decades-old science and making decisions based on scientific principles that in many cases are irrelevant.”

 

This outdated framework fails to match how Americans eat today—or how modern illnesses manifest. When the FDA was founded in the early 20th century, food safety concerns were focused on acute poisoning. Today, the primary health threats come from chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular illness, many of which develop slowly over years or decades. These conditions now contribute to the shortest average lifespan among industrialized nations.

 

While the exact mechanisms remain unclear, scientists suspect that food additives play a role in this public health crisis. Biologists Amy Shyer and Alan Rodrigues at Rockefeller University are studying how chemicals labeled as “safe,” such as aspartame, might interfere with cellular development. Their findings suggest that these additives could alter how cells organize into tissues, opening up a new and poorly understood area of potential risk.

 

Others, like former FDA and USDA official Jerold Mande, point to indirect harm. Synthetic dyes may not alter cells directly but could make processed foods more visually appealing and, in turn, more addictive—contributing to overeating, obesity, and the associated risks of diabetes and cancer.

 

Despite Kennedy’s ambition, his plan currently lacks firm commitments from food companies. He recently acknowledged that there is only a “handshake understanding” to begin phasing out the targeted dyes, and so far, few corporations have publicly signed on. He has urged manufacturers to use natural colorants as substitutes, and the FDA has approved three new ones. But experts warn that the health impacts of these alternatives are also largely unknown. According to Maffini, assuming they are safer is an example of the “appeal to nature” fallacy.

 

To address this growing concern meaningfully, any administration serious about reducing chronic disease must invest more deeply in scientific research. This includes funding for the FDA to update its oversight process and for the National Institutes of Health to increase support for nutrition science, which currently receives just five percent of its budget. Policymakers and researchers must investigate not only individual additives but also the complex food environments that shape our long-term health.

 

Without a robust scientific foundation, Kennedy’s initiative risks being dismissed as mere conjecture. But the core issue—how chemicals in our food may be undermining our health—is too important to ignore. As history has shown, handshake deals and industry self-regulation are never enough when public health is at stake.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from New York Times  2025-05-14

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

While ignoring the elephant in the room, the processed foods industry and its products, particularly ultra processed foods.

 

The use of additives and food dies is only one part of the problems that industry causes

 

Where it goes, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cancers and other diseases follow.

 

Regardless of what the underlying causes of food related public health problems is, Kennedy’s ’handshake agreements’  are little more than feigning  action that will not be monitored following the Government mass layoffs and funding cuts to the FDA and CDC.

 

On the Upside, this is a Kennedy initiative that isn’t actually putting people at risk, in that sense it’s a useful distraction for him.

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9778909/#:~:text=Processed foods are generally recognized,by 30% [8].

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-administration-begins-mass-layoffs-health-agencies-sources-say-2025-04-01/

 

[wombat]

Oh...so now what he has been saying for years is correct?

[animalmagic]

Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

[NanLaew]

Is this the same Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who recently posted pictures of him swimming with some of his grandchildren in a NY creek where swimming has been banned for over 30 years due to the unacceptable and dangerously high levels of fecal contamination from sewage outflows?

[stevenl]

27 minutes ago, wombat said:

Oh...so now what he has been saying for years is correct?

I think he is correct here. But will he be able to do something about this? Many vested interests will oppose drastic but necessary measures. And if measures are taken, will they be followed?

[Captor]

He should talk about micro and nano plastics in our bodies. Every american gets 2,4 g each month in his body by air, water and food. Indonesians get 12,4 gram/month. Just two examples. It goes for every person on earth. That is a huge threat for mankind in the future. 

[Presnock]

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I think he is correct here. But will he be able to do something about this? Many vested interests will oppose drastic but necessary measures. And if measures are taken, will they be followed?

Well he may not be 100% correct in everything he says, but some things are definitely correct - the food industry in the US has actually created the 40% plus obese  plus and additional large group of Fat people that need pharma to remain lucid and active IMHO.  We know that the food industry has for decades accepted certain cooking oils definitely dangerous for one's health, trans fats have been know for many many years yet it took 20 years of proof before the govt decided it was bad for us.  Chips and foods like this are made with additives that actually "hook" people just like drugs can be addictive.  IMHO the pharma industry and food industry have worked together to make an industry for themselves at the health expense of the citizens.  They don't really seem to be interested in an immediate cure though! IMHO.  

[frank83628]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While ignoring the elephant in the room, the processed foods industry and its products, particularly ultra processed foods.

 

The use of additives and food dies is only one part of the problems that industry causes

 

Where it goes, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cancers and other diseases follow.

 

Regardless of what the underlying causes of food related public health problems is, Kennedy’s ’handshake agreements’  are little more than feigning  action that will not be monitored following the Government mass layoffs and funding cuts to the FDA and CDC.

 

On the Upside, this is a Kennedy initiative that isn’t actually putting people at risk, in that sense it’s a useful distraction for him.

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9778909/#:~:text=Processed foods are generally recognized,by 30% [8].

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-administration-begins-mass-layoffs-health-agencies-sources-say-2025-04-01/

 

May as well just foget it then aye, not worth the hassle.

 

[RocketDog]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Oh...so now what he has been saying for years is correct?

My father used to say that even a blind old hog finds an acorn occasionally. 

 

A monkey with a typewriter spells a few real words occasionally.

 

The man is a full-blown nut case (brainworms probably).

 

A nutrition course in college lit a bulb for me at 21. I stopped eating crap then and have never looked back. At 75 I'm quite proud of my body and health and my hair is still brown.

 

If one opens their mind instead of their mouth the truth emerges quickly. No need to suffer hogs, monkies, or fools.

[newbee2022]

Similar idiot as Redfield.

I wonder how they passed their exam. Maybe bought it?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

May as well just foget it then aye, not worth the hassle.

 

Or perhaps it’s a distraction.

 

Either way, talk is cheap, handshakes are not regulation while gutting the FDA and CDC is an invite to ignore what regulations remain.

 

Profits up at cost to public health.

 

 

 

 

[frank83628]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or perhaps it’s a distraction.

 

Either way, talk is cheap, handshakes are not regulation while gutting the FDA and CDC is an invite to ignore what regulations remain.

 

Profits up at cost to public health.

 

 

 

 

A distraction from what?

 

So the only person that's actively trying to do <deleted>  to benefit the public you say is only doing it for profits?

[Cameroni]

Good to see a smart man like Robert Kennedy Jr is taking the issue of food safety seriously.

 

I would expect nothing less from a Donald Trump appointee than above average competence.

[newbee2022]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Is this the same Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who recently posted pictures of him swimming with some of his grandchildren in a NY creek where swimming has been banned for over 30 years due to the unacceptable and dangerously high levels of fecal contamination from sewage outflows?

Well, if you needed a proof ....you got it. He's incompetent, uneducated....just an idiot. That's it 

[jas007]

1 hour ago, RocketDog said:

My father used to say that even a blind old hog finds an acorn occasionally. 

 

A monkey with a typewriter spells a few real words occasionally.

 

The man is a full-blown nut case (brainworms probably).

 

A nutrition course in college lit a bulb for me at 21. I stopped eating crap then and have never looked back. At 75 I'm quite proud of my body and health and my hair is still brown.

 

If one opens their mind instead of their mouth the truth emerges quickly. No need to suffer hogs, monkies, or fools.

You can't be serious. Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion about Kennedy. Some of us know he's absolutely right about a lot of things.  And if I were you I'd revisit whatever you think you learned in a "nutrition course" you once took.  For example, the so-called "Food Pyramid" was based on questionable data and is likely wrong.  You can probably guess who subsidized the research for the study. 

 

If you're still healthy at age 75, you should probably credit good genes, for the most part.  Many people aren't so lucky and can't get away with eating junk, yesr after year. 

 

Have you ever tried one of those "Face Age" AI apps?  They have consumer versions and medical versions.  The medical versions supposedly give accurate results within 4 years.  The consumer versions are supposedly less accurate, but are usually not that far off.  Try it sometime, and see what AI thinks about your biological age. 

 

I tried a couple recently.  I'm about to be 74 and still have all my hair.  One AI app said I was 63, the other said I was 57.   Maybe they're just trying to make people feel good, but probably not.  Some people just have good genes and don't age so quickly.  I think I was about 43 the last time I got carded trying to go into a bar. 

[Yagoda]

Junk food isnt good for you. Junk in food isnt good for you. Neither is smoking weed or bungee jumping.

[wombat]

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Junk food isnt good for you. Junk in food isnt good for you. Neither is smoking weed or bungee jumping.

We all live to die, what does it matter?

[Purdey]

The reason American foodstuff has more additives is that the FDA won't ban something until it has been proven bad for you, while in the UK they ban as a preemptive measure. In other word, Americans get to test additives for the manufacturers. If a food can be made without artificial additives, why not? 

 

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The reason American foodstuff has more additives is that the FDA won't ban something until it has been proven bad for you, while in the UK they ban as a preemptive measure. In other word, Americans get to test additives for the manufacturers. If a food can be made without artificial additives, why not? 

 

 

Surely there are costs associated with sticking in all these extra additives.......so why do they do it?

 

Taste, colour, texture?

[candide]

5 hours ago, wombat said:

Oh...so now what he has been saying for years is correct?

What scientific studies have been showing for years is correct! 🙂

 

There's no reason to oppose his claims when they are supported by scientific evidence. The problem is when his claims are contradicted by scientific evidence.

[RocketDog]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

You can't be serious. Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion about Kennedy. Some of us know he's absolutely right about a lot of things.  And if I were you I'd revisit whatever you think you learned in a "nutrition course" you once took.  For example, the so-called "Food Pyramid" was based on questionable data and is likely wrong.  You can probably guess who subsidized the research for the study. 

 

If you're still healthy at age 75, you should probably credit good genes, for the most part.  Many people aren't so lucky and can't get away with eating junk, yesr after year. 

 

Have you ever tried one of those "Face Age" AI apps?  They have consumer versions and medical versions.  The medical versions supposedly give accurate results within 4 years.  The consumer versions are supposedly less accurate, but are usually not that far off.  Try it sometime, and see what AI thinks about your biological age. 

 

I tried a couple recently.  I'm about to be 74 and still have all my hair.  One AI app said I was 63, the other said I was 57.   Maybe they're just trying to make people feel good, but probably not.  Some people just have good genes and don't age so quickly.  I think I was about 43 the last time I got carded trying to go into a bar. 

Understanding my body's nutritional needs is a lifelong effort.

As far as aging and genes neither of will ever know will we?

 

Your opinion is at least as much conjecture as mine. 

 

So if you saw a skeleton of a person who indulged only in junk food all his life would you chalk that up to genes? You could and nobody can say you're wrong.

 

 I'll continue to learn about nutrition and err on the safe side thank you.

[wombat]

52 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The reason American foodstuff has more additives is that the FDA won't ban something until it has been proven bad for you, while in the UK they ban as a preemptive measure. In other word, Americans get to test additives for the manufacturers. If a food can be made without artificial additives, why not? 

 

any idea which version we get here?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, frank83628 said:

A distraction from what?

 

So the only person that's actively trying to do <deleted>  to benefit the public you say is only doing it for profits?

The FDA and CDC have been gutted.

 

No amount of ‘handshakes’ will hold the food industries to any standards.

 

A more rational approach would be not gut the regulators and fund research to determine which aspects of food production are causing harm.

 

 

[jas007]

4 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Surely there are costs associated with sticking in all these extra additives.......so why do they do it?

 

Taste, colour, texture?

They put in all the additives for a number of reasons, including cost. That and the fact that they want people addicted to the food they sell.  In America, much of the "food" is engineered to create junk food addicts, regardless of the health consequences. Taste, color, texture? All factors. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies profit from all the sick people, so there won't be any blowback from them.  And as anyone can see, it has worked according to plan.  A nation of sick fat people with multiple medical problems.  

 

And who has enabled it all?  Bought and paid for politicians and a "captured" FDA. 

 

The Trump administration is trying to put a stop to it all.  Hopefully, they will succeed.  All those obese sick people are expensive to take care of.