EWG warns that “secret” chemicals are slipping into the food supply through the GRAS pathway. This alarmist framing paves the way to FDA pre-approval, which will curtail access to thousands of natural ingredients. Action Alert!
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- The EWG report misleadingly groups naturally derived ingredients like green tea extract, grape skin extract, cinnamon extract, and coenzyme Q10 with novel synthetic additives, exaggerating potential risks.
- FDA approval does not automatically guarantee safety, as several additives cleared decades ago—such as tartrazine (Yellow #5), Blue #1, and methyl paraben—were later linked to health concerns.
- Policymakers should focus on improving transparency and adopting a tiered, risk-based regulatory system rather than imposing blanket FDA pre-approval for all food ingredients.
A new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) claims that more than 100 “secret” chemicals have entered the food supply without federal safety review through the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) pathway. The implication is clear: without greater FDA scrutiny, consumers are at risk.
But, as we’ve been saying for some time, the story is far more complicated, and EWG’s framing risks pushing policymakers toward the wrong solution.
First, FDA approval is not a guarantee of safety. History is full of examples of substances that went through formal FDA regulatory review and were later found to cause harm. Take Yellow #5 or tartrazine, associated with ADHD in children. Or Blue #1. These were both approved for use by the FDA during the flower power era in 1969. Another example is methyl paraben, which was last assessed in 1972, yet has more recently been found to be an endocrine disrupting chemical.
In other words, the mere fact that the FDA has reviewed something does not automatically make it safe.
Second, EWG’s list of “secret GRAS chemicals” includes many ingredients that are hardly mysterious industrial compounds. Green tea extract, grape skin extract, mushroom extracts, cinnamon extract, and coenzyme Q10—some of the examples highlighted in the report—are naturally derived substances that have been consumed for decades and studied extensively. Lumping these ingredients together with novel synthetic additives and portraying them all as unknown hazards is misleading and scientifically irresponsible.
Why? Because many foods and supplements—unlike synthetic chemical additives—contain ingredients that at certain levels are helpful, even essential, but at other levels can create injury, notably for a small subset of the population that is more sensitive. That’s why we have argued for a regulatory approach grounded in the Paracelsian principle (“the dose makes the poison”) rather than the precautionary principle (“keep it out until you prove [the ingredient] is safe”).
This is not to say the GRAS system is perfect. It isn’t. Greater transparency is needed. Companies that make GRAS determinations should publicly disclose the evidence supporting safety. Expert panels evaluating GRAS status should be independent and free of conflicts of interest.
But replacing the current system with a blanket pre-approval regime for every food ingredient, as some lawmakers have called for, would be a mistake. Such an approach would dramatically slow innovation, create a regulatory tsunami that would overwhelm the FDA, and could inadvertently restrict access to beneficial natural compounds with long histories of safe use.
A better approach would be a tiered, risk-based regulatory framework that we detailed in our 2025 white paper. Novel synthetic chemicals or ingredients produced through new industrial processes should face higher levels of scrutiny. Meanwhile, natural compounds with extensive safety data and centuries of dietary exposure should not be treated as if they were newly invented chemicals.
Consumers deserve transparency about what’s in their food and how safety determinations are made. But they also deserve regulatory policies grounded in science and proportional risk—not alarmist narratives that equate green tea extract with hazardous industrial additives.
The real goal should be smarter oversight: more disclosure, better post-market monitoring, and risk-based regulation that protects public health while preserving access to beneficial natural ingredients.
Action Alert!
