ANTHILLAsk your own question
Science and Health · 7 min read · full version

Is Food Policy Making Us Sick? What the Evidence Shows and Where It Stops

This is research, not medical advice. Talk to a qualified professional about your own health.
Watch the 2-minute video
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Library of Congress (see source for rights)
Last checked 2026-10-23. Sentence check: 6 paragraphs passed, 8 repaired, 2 removed. Every number links to the exact quote. Read the easy version

In short

The checked evidence does not show that US food policy is killing people, but it documents a regulatory gap and associations between ultra-processed food (UPF) and poorer health. Since 1958, manufacturers could independently determine that a substance is GRAS and exempt it from mandatory FDA pre-market review, without notifying FDA 6, and most additives entering the market since 1970 reached it through producer or industry self-determinations of safety rather than FDA evaluation and approval 9. In one analysis, higher UPF intake quartiles were associated with progressively higher adjusted odds of inadequate cardiovascular health, with the highest quartile showing an odds ratio of 2.57 2. A U.S. study also reported a 4% higher risk of death from any cause per 10-percentage-point increase in calories from UPF 27. Yet a U.S. cohort analysis found that total UPF intake was not associated with bowel cancer incidence 30. Some specific hazards did get acted on: national trans fat bans virtually eliminated the ingredient from the food supply 25, and FDA revoked Red No. 3 in 2025, relying on a 2022 color additive petition that included two chronic feeding studies in which male rats given high doses developed cancerous tumors through a rat-specific hormonal mechanism 59. The checked evidence does not give practical guidance on what to buy and eat today, so that part of your question remains open.

1958: the self-certified additive

In 1958, manufacturers could independently determine that a substance was GRAS and exempt it from mandatory FDA pre-market review, without notifying the agency 6. The 1997 proposed rule that followed made notification voluntary, and FDA's check under it asked whether documentation met statutory criteria rather than reviewing the scientific proof of safety, with that review due within ninety days 1318.

The scale of the gap became clearer over time. A 2010 General Accounting Office finding said FDA officials could not estimate how many GRAS determinations occurred without notification, because companies were not required to give the agency information about their determinations 19. A critique summarized the result: most additives entering the market since 1970 reached it through producer or industry self-determinations of safety rather than FDA evaluation and approval 9. In its 2016 GRAS final rule, FDA acknowledged that it lacks express statutory authority to require companies to submit GRAS notices 17.

Saccharin: a rat bladder fight

Studies in the 1970s linked saccharin to bladder cancer in laboratory rats, and that drove the controversy over the sweetener 75. The Price et al. study that formed the basis of the 1970 US ban reported increased bladder tumors in rodents fed a high-dose cyclamate-saccharin mixture, but its results were later considered unreliable 76. Its reliability was questioned because the animals with tumors also had urinary tract calcification and bladder parasites, both known to contribute to bladder tumors in rodents 79. FDA proposed banning saccharin in 1977 because animal studies showed it caused cancer 80.

In 2000, the National Toxicology Program and HHS removed saccharin from the list of substances reasonably anticipated to be carcinogens 69. NTP's delisting rested on the perception that the rat bladder tumors arise by mechanisms not relevant to humans, along with the lack of human data suggesting a hazard 74. NTP also attributed part of the male rat's sensitivity to the high levels of urinary protein males produce 71.

Trans fat: national bans nearly removed it

In 2009, a WHO scientific committee recommended virtual elimination of trans fats from all food supplies, replacing a 2003 WHO/FAO recommendation to keep intake under 1% of total calories 22. The evidence projects that eliminating industrially produced trans fat from the global food supply could prevent up to 17 million deaths by 2040 23.

In the US, partially hydrogenated oil was still on the GRAS list as of 2012, even though petitions to remove it were submitted in 2010 24. Where governments acted, results followed. National bans virtually eliminated trans fatty acids from the food supply, and local bans were very successful in removing them from fried foods 25. Denmark and Austria reached acceptable trans fat levels after bans and regulations, while Eastern European countries relying on voluntary labelling or limited reformulation still had very high levels 26.

In one US study of news coverage effects, unit sales of the two highest-TFA products, Crisco shortening and buttered popcorn, showed significant negative interactions with trans fat news coverage, and these effects dissipated after three weeks 21.

Caramel, cohorts and cardiovascular signals

California listed 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 in 2011 61. The evidence behind the listing included US National Toxicology Program two-year feeding studies from 2007, which found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male and female mice and equivocal evidence in female rats 62. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 4-MEI as Group 2B, 'possibly carcinogenic to humans,' based on those animal studies because no human data were available 63. When beverage industry groups argued that a threshold exists for 4-MEI carcinogenicity, OEHHA rejected that argument, relying on evidence about its mode of carcinogenic action 64.

On the diet side, higher quartiles of ultraprocessed food intake were associated with progressively higher adjusted odds of inadequate cardiovascular health, with the highest quartile showing an OR of 2.57 2. The authors described a graded inverse association between the percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods and cardiovascular health 3, and reported that the association was largely consistent across subgroups 4. Separate findings on colorectal cancer risk showed that among men, higher consumption of meat, poultry, or seafood-based ready-to-eat products and sugar-sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk 41, while among women, yogurt and dairy-based desserts were associated with lower risk 42.

2025: Red No. 3 revoked, erythrosine limited

In 2025, FDA revoked authorization for Red No. 3 59. The revocation relied on data from a 2022 color additive petition, which included two chronic feeding studies in which male rats given high doses developed cancerous tumors through a rat-specific hormonal mechanism 59. Despite the finding that the dye is not relevant to humans, FDA said the Delaney Clause required revoking the authorization because cancer was a known effect in male rats 60.

In Europe, erythrosine (E127) may only be used for producing cocktail cherries, syrup-preserved cherries, and candied cherries 66. Zuno et al. (1994) suggested that erythrosine's lack of clastogenic potential supports a non-genotoxic mechanism for its carcinogenicity 67.

Where things stand now

The checked evidence describes a proposed FDA rule on GRAS substances. If finalized, it would require GRAS notices for substances that companies self-determine to be GRAS for use in human or animal food, unless an exception applies 5, and would make notification mandatory for most ingredients added to foods marketed in the US, a change from the long-standing voluntary approach 8. The proposal would for the first time mandate premarket notification for such substances 12. It would not create a pre-market approval framework, and companies could keep marketing self-determined substances while FDA reviews the notice 7. The initial 45-day period only decides whether a submission is adequate to file and does not assess whether the substance is actually GRAS 10. Open questions remain, including how FDA would treat confidential or trade secret information in mandatory submissions, which the 2026 agenda entry does not explain 20.

The newest health evidence is from October 2026, and it is mixed. A June 2026 US study reported a 4% higher risk of death from any cause per 10-percentage-point increase in calories from UPF, but it reported no food-swap analysis 27. A separate October 2026 NIH-AARP report found that replacing 10% of UPF intake with minimally processed foods was linked to 2% lower bowel cancer incidence 28, while the same analysis found total UPF intake was not associated with bowel cancer incidence 30. The most recent checked evidence on dyes is the 2025 Red No. 3 revocation 59, and the newest checked evidence overall is from October 17, 2026 28. The checked evidence does not include any dated guidance on which foods are safe to buy and eat today.

Still unknown

What should a shopper buy and eat today? The checked evidence has no dated guidance on dietary advice, labels, budgets, or store access, so the practical-buying and equity lanes are thin and this question is not settled here.

Do the food-swap benefits seen in one 2026 analysis hold in other cohorts and for mortality, not just bowel cancer? The checked evidence has no full substitution analysis for all-cause mortality from a US cohort.

Will mandatory GRAS notification survive the authority question FDA itself raised in 2016, and how will trade secrets be handled? These remain open in the checked sources.

How do sodium, added sugar, saturated fat and refined grains each affect chronic disease risk apart from processing labels? The checked evidence does not address these core nutrient lanes, so this question is unresolved.

Explore this colony and ask your own questions

Connected to other stories

United States also appears in Do crypto insiders really take money from other investors?, How did the Federal Reserve Act change who could create money?, Did Israel's ten lost tribes really disappear forever?, How early did people really reach Australia and Asia?, Where did Cajun and Creole people really come from?, What are the best ways to make money online in 2027?, How long has AI been around for everyone to use?, Is it really only three licks to reach a Tootsie Pop center?, Could One Bitcoin Really Be Worth $200,000?, Have leaked Project 2025 plans really been happening?, Has Anyone Ever Used the Internet for Time Travel?, Did South Gate, California's city government really have corruption problems?, Why hasn't anyone flown to Mars yet?, Did the Poythress Family Really Come From Pocahontas?, How much would 10 sales a day at $500 make?, Can you really make money trading crypto?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?, Who Is the Richest Freemason, and Can We Prove It?, Is the US really just taking minerals from Congo?, Can Anyone Really Name the First Horror Movie Ever Made?.

European Union also appears in Do crypto insiders really take money from other investors?, How did the Federal Reserve Act change who could create money?, What are the best ways to make money online in 2027?, How long has AI been around for everyone to use?, Could One Bitcoin Really Be Worth $200,000?, Can you really make money trading crypto?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?, Is the US really just taking minerals from Congo?.

United States Congress also appears in How did the Federal Reserve Act change who could create money?, How early did people really reach Australia and Asia?, Have leaked Project 2025 plans really been happening?, Why hasn't anyone flown to Mars yet?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?, Is the US really just taking minerals from Congo?.

Supreme Court of the United States also appears in Do crypto insiders really take money from other investors?, How early did people really reach Australia and Asia?, Have leaked Project 2025 plans really been happening?, Did South Gate, California's city government really have corruption problems?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?.

Canada also appears in How did the Federal Reserve Act change who could create money?, How early did people really reach Australia and Asia?, Where did Cajun and Creole people really come from?, What are the best ways to make money online in 2027?, Why is the sky blue but sometimes gray?, How long has AI been around for everyone to use?, Could One Bitcoin Really Be Worth $200,000?, How much would 10 sales a day at $500 make?, Can you really make money trading crypto?, Who Is the Richest Freemason, and Can We Prove It?, Can Anyone Really Name the First Horror Movie Ever Made?.

Federal Register also appears in Have leaked Project 2025 plans really been happening?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?, Is the US really just taking minerals from Congo?.

France also appears in How did the Federal Reserve Act change who could create money?, Did the Knights Templar really invent banking?, Where did Cajun and Creole people really come from?, What are the best ways to make money online in 2027?, Has Anyone Ever Used the Internet for Time Travel?, Did the Poythress Family Really Come From Pocahontas?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?, Who Is the Richest Freemason, and Can We Prove It?, Is the US really just taking minerals from Congo?, Can Anyone Really Name the First Horror Movie Ever Made?.

United Kingdom also appears in How did the Federal Reserve Act change who could create money?, What are the best ways to make money online in 2027?, How long has AI been around for everyone to use?, Could One Bitcoin Really Be Worth $200,000?, Why hasn't anyone flown to Mars yet?, Can you really make money trading crypto?, What was the first real crypto trade, and when did it happen?, Is the US really just taking minerals from Congo?, Can Anyone Really Name the First Horror Movie Ever Made?.

Sources

[1] supported · primary source
Most UPF subcategories were harmful, but breakfast cereals showed a protective pattern rather than increased risk.
"While most UPF categories showed harmful effects, breakfast cereals demonstrated protective properties, which may be explained by several biological mechanisms documented in previous studies."
Ultra-processed foods, biological ageing, and all-cause mortality risk ...
[2] documented · scholarly source
Higher quartiles of ultraprocessed food intake were associated with progressively higher adjusted odds of inadequate cardiovascular health, with the highest quartile showing an OR of 2.57.
"The adjusted ORs for inadequate CVH were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.23, 1.60), 1.82 (1.45, 2.29), and 2.57 (1.79, 3.70), respectively, comparing quartiles 2, 3, and 4 with quartile 1 of UPF intake."
Association between ultraprocessed food intake and cardiovascular health in US adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the NHANES 2011–2016 (2020)
[3] supported · scholarly source
The authors describe a graded inverse association between the percentage of calories from ultraprocessed foods and cardiovascular health.
"A graded inverse association between %kcal from UPFs and CVH was observed."
Association between ultraprocessed food intake and cardiovascular health in US adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the NHANES 2011–2016 (2020)
[4] supported · scholarly source
The association between ultraprocessed food intake and cardiovascular health was reported as largely consistent across subgroups.
"The pattern of association was largely consistent across subgroups."
Association between ultraprocessed food intake and cardiovascular health in US adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the NHANES 2011–2016 (2020)
[5] supported · niche source
If finalized, the proposed rule would require GRAS notices for substances that companies self-determine to be GRAS for use in human or animal food, unless an exception applies.
"If finalized, the rule would require submission of GRAS notices for substances self-determined to be GRAS under the conditions of their intended use in human or animal food, unless an exception applies."
FDA Issues Proposed Rule on Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
[6] supported · niche source
Since 1958, manufacturers could independently determine that a substance is GRAS and exempt it from mandatory FDA pre-market review, without notifying FDA.
"Since Congress created the GRAS exemption in 1958, manufacturers have been able to independently determine that substances are generally recognized as safe under their intended conditions of use and therefore exempt from mandatory FDA pre-market review."
No More GRAS Self-Affirmations? FDA Proposes Mandatory GRAS Notifications
[7] supported · niche source
The proposal would not create a pre-market approval framework for GRAS substances, and companies could keep marketing self-determined GRAS substances while FDA reviews the notice.
"Notably, the Proposed Rule would not establish a pre-market approval framework for GRAS substances (and FDA acknowledges that it lacks the authority to do so). Companies may continue to market self-determined GRAS substances before and while FDA reviews the GRAS notice."
FDA Issues Proposed Rule on Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
[8] supported · niche source
The proposed rule would make GRAS notification mandatory for most ingredients added to foods marketed in the U.S., a change from the long-standing voluntary notification approach.
"The proposed rule would change that approach by requiring GRAS notifications for most ingredients added to foods marketed in the United States."
No More GRAS Self-Affirmations? FDA Proposes Mandatory GRAS Notifications
[9] supported · scholarly source
Most additives entering the market since 1970 have reached it through producer or industry self-determinations of safety rather than FDA evaluation and approval.
"Most additives entering the market since 1970 have done so based upon producer or industry self-determinations of safety rather than by FDA evaluation and approval."
GRAS-Fed Americans: Sick of Lax Regulation of Food Additives (2016)
[10] supported · niche source
FDA proposes a 45-day initial period to decide whether a GRAS submission is adequate to file, and this step does not assess whether the substance is actually GRAS.
"FDA proposes a 45-day initial evaluation period for determining whether a submission is adequate to file."
FDA Issues Proposed Rule on Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
[11] supported · niche source
Under the proposal, FDA would publish qualifying transition submissions in its listing, but the listing would not mean FDA has reviewed or agreed with the underlying GRAS conclusion.
"FDA would publish qualifying submissions, but listing would not mean that FDA has reviewed or agreed with the underlying GRAS conclusion."
No More GRAS Self-Affirmations? FDA Proposes Mandatory GRAS Notifications
[12] supported · niche source
The proposed FDA rule (RIN 0910-AJ02) would for the first time mandate premarket notification for substances determined to be GRAS.
"would, for the first time, mandate premarket notification for substances determined to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)."
New Details Emerge on FDA's GRAS Rulemaking: Updated Timeline, Narrower Scope, and Open Questions on Statutory Authority
[13] supported · scholarly source
Most substances that are food additives avoid pre-market approval by claiming GRAS status, and they reach the market under a 1997 proposed rule allowing voluntary notification of the producer's GRAS self-determination.
"Instead, these substances currently reach the market under the FDA’s 1997 Proposed Rule allowing voluntary notification to FDA of the producer’s GRAS self-determination."
GRAS-Fed Americans: Sick of Lax Regulation of Food Additives (2016)
[14] supported · niche source
Listing a streamlined submission on FDA's public list does not mean the Agency has reviewed the substance's GRAS status.
"Inclusion on the list would not represent Agency review of GRAS status."
FDA Issues Proposed Rule on Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)
[15] supported · niche source
For full GRAS notices, FDA proposes a 45-day initial filing review and generally a response within 180 days after filing, extendable twice by 90 days.
"For full GRAS notices, FDA proposes a 45-day initial filing review and generally would respond within 180 days after filing, subject to two possible 90-day extensions."
No More GRAS Self-Affirmations? FDA Proposes Mandatory GRAS Notifications
[16] supported · niche source
Under the 2026 Unified Agenda entry, uses of food substances subject to mandatory notification would be presumed not to be GRAS unless the notification requirement has been met, which would effectively foreclose self-affirmation as a lawful pathway.
"Uses of food substances that are subject to the mandatory notification requirement will be presumed by FDA not to be GRAS unless the notification requirement has been met."
New Details Emerge on FDA's GRAS Rulemaking: Updated Timeline, Narrower Scope, and Open Questions on Statutory Authority
[17] supported · niche source
In its 2016 GRAS final rule preamble, FDA acknowledged that it lacks express statutory authority to require companies to submit GRAS notices.
"lack[s] express statutory authority to require companies to submit GRAS notices."
New Details Emerge on FDA's GRAS Rulemaking: Updated Timeline, Narrower Scope, and Open Questions on Statutory Authority
[18] supported · scholarly source
Under the 1997 proposed notification rule, FDA checks whether submitted documentation meets the statutory criteria rather than reviewing the scientific proof of safety, and this cursory review is to be completed within ninety days.
"Under the 1997 Proposed Rule, the FDA reviews not the scientific evidence for proof of safety, but rather the documentation submitted for sufficiency under the statutory criteria for notification."
GRAS-Fed Americans: Sick of Lax Regulation of Food Additives (2016)
[19] supported · scholarly source
A 2010 General Accounting Office finding stated that because companies were not required to give FDA information about their GRAS determinations, FDA officials could not estimate how many determinations occurred without notification to the agency.
"The General Accounting Office concluded in 2010 that “because companies are not required to provide information to FDA regarding their GRAS determinations,”"
GRAS-Fed Americans: Sick of Lax Regulation of Food Additives (2016)
[20] supported · niche source
The 2026 Agenda entry does not explain how FDA would treat confidential or trade secret information in mandatory GRAS submissions, even though GRAS determinations rest on chemical identities and use levels that notifiers may consider proprietary.
"The 2026 Agenda entry also does not address how the FDA would handle confidential, trade secret, or otherwise proprietary information in mandatory GRAS submissions."
New Details Emerge on FDA's GRAS Rulemaking: Updated Timeline, Narrower Scope, and Open Questions on Statutory Authority
[21] documented · scholarly source
In a US study of news coverage effects, unit sales of the two highest-TFA products (Crisco shortening and buttered popcorn) showed significant negative interactions with trans fat news coverage, and these effects dissipated after 3 weeks.
"There were significant negative interactions between unit sales and TFA news coverage for the two products with the highest TFA content: Crisco shortening and buttered popcorn. The effects dissipated after 3 weeks."
The effectiveness of policies for reducing dietary trans fat: a systematic review of the evidence (2013)
[22] supported · niche source
In 2009, a WHO scientific committee recommended the 'virtual elimination' of trans fats from all food supplies, replacing a 2003 WHO/FAO recommendation to limit intake to less than 1 per cent of total calories.
"In 2009, a World Health Organization (WHO) scientific committee recommended the ‘virtual elimination’ of trans fats from all food supplies (1). This recommendation replaced the 2003 joint WHO and Food and UN Agriculture Organization (FAO) report recommendation that advised countries worldwide to limit their population intakes of industrially produced trans-fatty acids (hereafter, trans fats) to le"
Legislation, Trans fats: The case for a global ban (2012)
[23] supported · scholarly source
Eliminating industrially produced trans fatty acids from the global food supply could prevent up to 17 million deaths by 2040.
"Theirremovalfromtheglobalfoodsupplycouldpreventupto17milliondeathsby2040"
Trans Fat Free by 2023—A Building Block of the COVID-19 Response (2021)
[24] supported · niche source
As of 2012, partially hydrogenated oil remained on the US FDA's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list, even though petitions to remove it were submitted to the FDA in 2010.
"The use of partially hydrogenated oil in food production and preparation still remains on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list (10) despite requests that petitioned the FDA to remove it in 2010 (11)."
Legislation, Trans fats: The case for a global ban (2012)
[25] documented · scholarly source
National bans virtually eliminated trans fatty acids from the food supply, while local bans were very successful in removing them from fried foods.
"National bans virtually eliminated TFAs from the food supply ( Table 3 ) and local bans were very successful in removing TFAs from fried foods."
The effectiveness of policies for reducing dietary trans fat: a systematic review of the evidence (2013)
[26] supported · niche source
Denmark and Austria had trans fat levels at acceptable levels after implementing trans fat bans and regulations, while Eastern European countries with only voluntary labelling or limited reformulation still had very high levels.
"In Eastern Europe (for example, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic) where voluntary-only labelling or limited reformulation has occurred, trans fats remain very high in many processed products and quick-serve restaurant meals, compared with acceptable levels in Denmark and Austria where trans fat bans and regulations have been implemented (28)."
Legislation, Trans fats: The case for a global ban (2012)
[27] supported · niche source
The U.S. study reported a 4% higher risk of death from any cause associated with higher intake of ultra-processed foods, measured per 10-percentage-point increase in calories from these foods. The document does not report any food-swap analysis or results from other cohorts.
"Higher intake was also linked with greater odds of metabolic syndrome and diabetes, along with a 4% higher risk of death from any cause."
Ultra-Processed Foods And Your Health: What The June 2026 Study Means
[28] supported · established source
In the NIH-AARP cohort of over 460,000 U.S. adults, replacing 10% of ultra-processed food intake with minimally processed foods was linked to 2% lower bowel cancer incidence.
"replacing 10% of ultra-processed food intake with the equivalent weight of minimally processed foods was linked to a 2% reduction in the incidence of bowel cancer."
Replacing Just 10 Percent of Ultra‑processed Foods with Whole Foods ...
[29] supported · niche source
Swapping 10% of ultra-processed food by weight for minimally processed options was linked to a 2% lower colorectal cancer rate in the NCI study, not to all-cause mortality.
"Swapping just 10 percent of ultra-processed food by weight for minimally processed options was tied to a 2 percent lower colorectal cancer rate."
A huge NCI study just rewrote the ultra-processed food and colon cancer ...
[30] supported · established source
Total ultra-processed food intake was not associated with bowel cancer incidence in the U.S. cohort analysis.
"However, we also found no association between total ultra-processed food intake and bowel cancer incidence."
Replacing Just 10 Percent of Ultra‑processed Foods with Whole Foods ...
[31] supported · niche source
Earlier research linked each extra 100 grams of ultra-processed food a day to a higher risk of heart disease, cancer and death overall.
"tying each extra 100 grams of ultra-processed food a day to a higher risk of heart disease, cancer and death overall"
A huge NCI study just rewrote the ultra-processed food and colon cancer ...
[32] documented · primary source
In the rat bladder study, sodium saccharin was used as a promoter of bladder tumors after the chemical FANFT had been used as an initiator.
"we have used N-[4-(5-nitro-2-furyl)-2-thiazolyl]formamide (FANFT) as initiator and sodium saccharin (SAC) or tryptophan as promoters."
Multistage carcinogenesis in the urinary bladder. (1983)
[33] supported · primary source
In rats, sodium saccharin acts as a bladder carcinogen when given after bladder ulceration, even without a prior initiating agent.
"For example, if sodium saccharin is administered to rats after ulceration of the bladder, even without prior administration of an initiator, bladder carcinoma develops."
Promotion in urinary bladder carcinogenesis. (1983)
[34] documented · scholarly source
Light microscopy and labeling-index changes in the rat bladder appeared only at the highest saccharin dose (7.5%), not at the lower doses.
"Light microscopic changes and an increase in labeling index were seen at all time points in rats fed 7.5% sodium saccharin, but not at the lower doses."
Comparative analysis of the proliferative response of the rat urinary bladder to sodium saccharin by light and scanning electron microscopy and autoradiography. (1990)
[35] documented · primary source
Saccharin did not produce bladder tumors on its own in these experiments; tumors appeared only when it followed FANFT initiation.
"no tumors resulted if either promoter was given without initiation with FANFT."
Multistage carcinogenesis in the urinary bladder. (1983)
[36] documented · primary source
Dietary sodium saccharin is identified as a promoter in a multistage bladder carcinogenesis process in rats, with MNU or FANFT used as initiators.
"In addition, a multistage carcinogenesis process has been demonstrated for the rat bladder using MNU or FANFT as initiators, and dietary sodium saccharin, sodium cyclamate, or tryptophan as promoters."
Promotion in urinary bladder carcinogenesis. (1983)
[37] documented · scholarly source
The rat urothelial hyperplastic response to sodium saccharin varied with both dose and time, and scanning electron microscopy was the most sensitive detection method of the three tested.
"This study demonstrates that the hyperplastic response of the urothelium to sodium saccharin administration varies with dose and time, and that observation by scanning electron microscopy is the most sensitive of the three methods evaluated for detecting these changes."
Comparative analysis of the proliferative response of the rat urinary bladder to sodium saccharin by light and scanning electron microscopy and autoradiography. (1990)
[38] documented · primary source
EFSA said a re-evaluation of aspartame would have been started immediately if any evidence had led its expert Panel to reconsider the sweetener's safety.
"Had any evidence been found that would have led EFSA’s expert Panel to reconsider the safety of aspartame, a re-evaluation would have been immediately initiated."
www.efsa.europa.eu
[39] documented · primary source
Saccharin induced bladder tumors even without prior FANFT initiation when the bladder lining was rapidly proliferating from ulceration, pellet insertion, or in utero exposure.
"administration of SAC to animals with a rapidly proliferating bladder mucosa, induced by ulceration, pellet insertion, or in utero, resulted in bladder tumor induction, even without prior initiation with FANFT."
Multistage carcinogenesis in the urinary bladder. (1983)
[40] supported · scholarly source
The source is a single prospective cohort analysis of three US cohorts, not a 2024 BMJ meta-analysis, so it does not report heterogeneity across primary studies; it does report which UPF subgroups were associated with colorectal cancer risk.
"Prospective cohort study with dietary intake assessed every four years using food frequency questionnaires."
Association of ultra-processed food consumption with colorectal cancer risk among men and women: results from three prospective US cohort studies (2022)
[41] documented · scholarly source
Among men, higher consumption of meat/poultry/seafood-based ready-to-eat products and sugar-sweetened beverages was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk.
"higher consumption of meat/poultry/seafood based ready-to-eat products (hazard ratio for highest versus lowest fifth 1.44, 1.20 to 1.73; P for trend<0.001) and sugar sweetened beverages (1.21, 1.01 to 1.44; P for trend=0.013) among men"
Association of ultra-processed food consumption with colorectal cancer risk among men and women: results from three prospective US cohort studies (2022)
[42] documented · scholarly source
Among women, ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes were associated with increased colorectal cancer risk, while yogurt and dairy-based desserts were associated with lower risk.
"ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes among women (1.17, 1.01 to 1.36; P for trend=0.02) was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer; yogurt and dairy based desserts were negatively associated with the risk of colorectal cancer among women (hazard ratio 0.83, 0.71 to 0.97; P for trend=0.002)"
Association of ultra-processed food consumption with colorectal cancer risk among men and women: results from three prospective US cohort studies (2022)
[43] documented · scholarly source
In men, the overall positive association with ultra-processed food was limited to distal colon cancer, and no overall association was seen among women.
"the positive association was limited to distal colon cancer (72% increased risk; hazard ratio 1.72, 1.24 to 2.37; P for trend<0.001)"
Association of ultra-processed food consumption with colorectal cancer risk among men and women: results from three prospective US cohort studies (2022)
[44] supported · scholarly source
In the substitution models, the cohort-associated fraction rose to 9.67% for colon cancer and 7.30% for colorectal cancer incidence.
"In substitution models, the CAF increased to 9.67% (4.36; 14.85) for colon cancer and 7.30% (3.05; 11.48) for CRC incidence."
Assessing the role of ultra-processed foods in colorectal cancer incidence: insights from the EPIC cohort (2026)
[45] supported · scholarly source
The NutriNet-Santé mortality analysis expressed UPF intake as a percentage of weight, which is a gram-based metric, rather than as an energy-based percentage.
"NutriNet-Santémortalityanalysisusedpercentageofweightinits"
Beyond the label: a methodological and geographic synthesis of ultra-processed food health outcomes (2026)
[46] supported · scholarly source
Fang et al. reported a modest overall association between ultra-processed food and mortality with a hazard ratio of about 1.04, with the association concentrated in processed meats and sweetened beverages.
"reported that the modest overall association (HR ≈ 1.04)"
Beyond the label: a methodological and geographic synthesis of ultra-processed food health outcomes (2026)
[47] supported · scholarly source
The FEMA Expert Panel's re-evaluation of natural flavor complexes began in 2015, covering over 250 NFCs.
"In 2015, the Expert Panel of the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) initiated a program for the re-evaluation of the safety of over 250 natural flavor complexes (NFCs) used as flavor ingredients."
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Cinnamomum and Myroxylon-derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[48] supported · scholarly source
The FEMA Expert Panel's re-evaluation of natural flavor complexes uses a constituent-based procedure that was outlined in 2005 and later updated in 2018.
"The re-evaluation of NFCs is conducted based on a constituent-based procedure outlined in 2005 and updated in 2018 that evaluates the safety of NFCs for their intended use as flavor ingredients."
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Mint, buchu, dill and caraway derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[49] supported · niche source
The FEMA Expert Panel's flavor safety assessment program began in 1960.
"In 1960, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) Expert Panel began a program to assess the safety of flavor ingredients for their intended use in human food."
GRAS 29 Flavoring Substances
[50] documented · scholarly source
In 2015, the FEMA Expert Panel began re-evaluating the safety of over 250 natural flavor complexes used as flavor ingredients.
"In 2015, the Expert Panel of the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) initiated a re-evaluation of the safety of over 250 natural flavor complexes (NFCs) used as flavor ingredients."
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Mint, buchu, dill and caraway derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[51] supported · scholarly source
The current procedure relies on full chemical characterization of each NFC and grouping its constituents into congeneric groups.
"The procedure relies on a complete chemical characterization of the NFC intended for commerce and organization of each NFC's chemical constituents into well-defined congeneric groups."
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Cinnamomum and Myroxylon-derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[52] supported · niche source
The Expert Panel has a long history of publishing the criteria it uses in its safety assessments, citing 2005 and 2018 publications.
"The Expert Panel has a long history of publishing the criteria used in their safety assessments of flavoring substances for food (Smith et al. 2005a; Smith et al. 2005b; Cohen et al. 2018a)."
GRAS 29 Flavoring Substances
[53] documented · scholarly source
In this re-evaluation, the Expert Panel affirmed GRAS status for ten mint, buchu, caraway and dill ingredients and determined GRAS status for three new ingredients.
"The FEMA Expert Panel affirmed the GRAS status of Peppermint Oil (FEMA 2848), Spearmint Oil (FEMA 3032), Spearmint Extract (FEMA 3031), Cornmint Oil (FEMA 4219), Erospicata Oil (FEMA 4777), Curly Mint Oil (FEMA 4778), Pennyroyal Oil (FEMA 2839), Buchu Leaves Oil (FEMA 2169), Caraway Oil (FEMA 2238) and Dill Oil (FEMA 2383) and determined FEMA GRAS status for Buchu Leaves Extract (FEMA 4923), Peppe"
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Mint, buchu, dill and caraway derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[54] supported · scholarly source
Safety is judged using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept along with absorption, metabolism and toxicology data for the congeneric groups and the NFC.
"The safety of the NFC is evaluated using the well-established and conservative threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) concept in addition to data on absorption, metabolism and toxicology of members of the congeneric groups and the NFC under evaluation."
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Cinnamomum and Myroxylon-derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[55] supported · niche source
The Panel has reviewed and changed its criteria for botanical species verification because of an increase in complex mixture and natural flavor complex applications.
"Recently, the Panel has seen an increase in complex mixtures or natural flavoring complex applications and has reviewed its criteria regarding botanical species verification."
GRAS 29 Flavoring Substances
[56] documented · scholarly source
In this 2019 publication, six Myroxylon and Cinnamomum NFCs were evaluated and affirmed as GRAS for use as flavor ingredients.
"Six NFCs from the Myroxylon and Cinnamomum genera, Balsam Oil, Peru (FEMA 2117), Tolu Balsam Extract (FEMA 3069), Cassia Bark Extract (FEMA 2257), Cassia Bark Oil (FEMA 2258), Cinnamon Bark Extract (FEMA 2290) and Cinnamon Bark Oil (FEMA 2291) were evaluated and affirmed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under their conditions of intended use as flavor ingredients."
FEMA GRAS assessment of natural flavor complexes: Cinnamomum and Myroxylon-derived flavoring ingredients (2019)
[57] supported · niche source
In 2018 the Expert Panel published an updated approach to safety evaluation of natural flavor complexes.
"In 2018, the FEMA Expert Panel published an update to its approach to the safety evaluation of natural flavor complexes (NFCs)"
GRAS 29 Flavoring Substances
[58] supported · niche source
The Panel concluded that in silico tools cannot substitute for in vitro and in vivo metabolic and toxicological data in FEMA GRAS applications.
"the Panel has concluded that the information produced from currently available in silico tools cannot be used as a substitute for in vitro and in vivo metabolic and toxicological information within the context of FEMA GRAS applications."
GRAS 29 Flavoring Substances
[59] supported · niche source
The 2025 Red No. 3 revocation relied on data from a 2022 color additive petition, which included two chronic feeding studies in which male rats given high doses developed cancerous tumors through a rat-specific hormonal mechanism.
"Data provided in a 2022 color additive petition submitted to the FDA included two chronic feeding studies showing that male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3 developed cancerous tumors via a rat-specific hormonal mechanism."
FDA to Revoke Authorization for the Use of Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs
[60] supported · niche source
Despite the finding that the dye is not relevant to humans, FDA said the Delaney Clause required revoking the authorization because cancer was a known effect in male rats.
"However, since cancer is a known effect in male rats upon ingestion of the dye, application of the Delaney Clause requires that the authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 be revoked."
FDA to Revoke Authorization for the Use of Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs
[61] documented · scholarly source
California listed 4-methylimidazole as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 in 2011.
"In 2011, California listed 4-MEI as a carcinogen under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, which is better known as Proposition 65"
Caramel Color in Soft Drinks and Exposure to 4-Methylimidazole: A Quantitative Risk Assessment
[62] supported · scholarly source
The U.S. National Toxicology Program's 2007 two-year feeding studies found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male and female mice and equivocal evidence in female rats, which formed the basis for the carcinogenicity assessment.
"The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) assessed the carcinogenicity of 4-MEI in male and female mice and rats using two-year feeding studies in 2007, concluding that there was “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male and female mice”"
Caramel Color in Soft Drinks and Exposure to 4-Methylimidazole: A Quantitative Risk Assessment
[63] documented · scholarly source
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 4-MEI as Group 2B, 'possibly carcinogenic to humans,' based on the NTP animal studies, since no human data were available.
"Based on the NTP studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 4-MEI as Group 2B, or “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, indicating sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals while no human data were available"
Caramel Color in Soft Drinks and Exposure to 4-Methylimidazole: A Quantitative Risk Assessment
[64] supported · scholarly source
The OEHHA rejected beverage industry arguments that an exposure threshold exists for 4-MEI carcinogenicity, relying on evidence about its mode of carcinogenic action.
"The OEHHA denied these claims on the basis of available evidence regarding the mode of carcinogenic action of 4-MEI"
Caramel Color in Soft Drinks and Exposure to 4-Methylimidazole: A Quantitative Risk Assessment
[65] supported · scholarly source
Beverage industry claims that a threshold exists for 4-MEI carcinogenicity were submitted to OEHHA when the agency set the 4-MEI no significant risk level.
"Similar statements are made regularly by the beverage industry, which submitted these claims to the OEHHA when the agency set the NSRL for 4-MEI under Proposition 65"
Caramel Color in Soft Drinks and Exposure to 4-Methylimidazole: A Quantitative Risk Assessment
[66] supported · reference source
In Europe, erythrosine (E127) may only be used for producing cocktail cherries, syrup-preserved cherries, and candied cherries.
"Erythrosin darf in Europa ausschließlich für die Produktion von Cocktailkirschen, in Sirup eingelegten Kirschen und kandierten Kirschen verwendet werden."
Translation: In Europe, erythrosine may be used exclusively for the production of cocktail cherries, cherries preserved in syrup, and candied cherries.
Cocktailkirsche
[67] supported · niche source
Zuno et al. (1994) suggested that erythrosine's lack of clastogenic potential supports a non-genotoxic mechanism for its carcinogenicity.
"that the lack of a clastogenic potential provides support for the non-genotoxic mechanism of the carcinogenicity"
Toxicity of food colours and additives: A review (2015)
[68] supported · reference source
In January 2025 the US FDA banned Red No. 3 (erythrosine), as reported by NBC News.
"FDA bans Red No. 3, artificial coloring used in beverages, candy and other foods."
Erythrosin
[69] supported · scholarly source
In 2000, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services removed saccharin from the list of substances reasonably anticipated to be carcinogens.
"On the basis of this information, in 2000, NTP and the United States Department of Health and Human Services removed saccharin from the list of substa..."
Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence - ScienceDirect
[70] supported · scholarly source
Following a formal NTP review, saccharin was delisted from the 10th Report on Carcinogens because the rodent cancer data were judged insufficient.
"Following a formal review by NTP, saccharin was delisted from the 10th Report on Carcinogens, because the rodent cancer data are not sufficient to mee..."
Saccharin Sodium - an overview
[71] documented · primary source
The NTP attributes part of the male rat's sex predilection for saccharin-induced bladder tumors to the high levels of urinary protein that male rats characteristically produce.
"The high levels of urinary protein characteristically produced by male rats may partially explain"
15th RoC: Appendix B - National Toxicology Program (NTP)
[72] supported · primary source
The NTP lists urinary conditions that must be simultaneously or sequentially present for saccharin to induce bladder tumors in rats, including urinary crystals or precipitate.
"These conditions include a urinary pH greater than 6.5, increased urinary sodium concentration, increased urine volume, decreased urine osmolality, and presence of urinary crystals or precipitate"
15th RoC: Appendix B - National Toxicology Program (NTP)
[73] documented · primary source
In rat studies, sodium saccharin produced a dose-related increase in urinary-bladder neoplasms at dietary concentrations above 1%.
"as evidenced by a dose-related increased incidence of benign or malignant urinary-bladder neoplasms at dietary concentrations greater than 1%"
15th RoC: Appendix B - National Toxicology Program (NTP)
[74] supported · primary source
The NTP's delisting decision for saccharin rested on the perception that the rat bladder tumors arise by mechanisms not relevant to humans, together with the lack of human data suggesting a carcinogenic hazard.
"This decision is based on the perception that the observed urinary-bladder tumors in rats arise by mechanisms not relevant to humans"
15th RoC: Appendix B - National Toxicology Program (NTP)
[75] supported · niche source
Studies in the 1970s linked saccharin to bladder cancer in laboratory rats, which drove the controversy over the sweetener. The document does not give the strains, sexes, dose levels, or tumor incidences of those studies.
"Following its growth, saccharin faced significant controversy, primarily due to studies in the 1970s that linked it to bladder cancer in lab rats."
The Safety of Saccharin: An Analysis of Health Effects and Market Dynamics (2025)
[76] supported · primary source
The Price et al. study, which formed the basis of the 1970 United States ban, reported increased bladder tumors in rodents fed a high-dose cyclamate-saccharin mixture, but its results were later considered unreliable.
"Although the Price et al. [ 58 ] study, which formed the basis of the 1970 United States ban, reported increased bladder tumors in rodents fed a high-dose cyclamate-saccharin mixture, the interpretation of these results was subsequently considered unreliable"
Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence - PMC
[77] supported · niche source
Many rodent studies have shown that saccharin can cause urinary bladder cancer, especially in males.
"Many studies on rodents have shown that saccharin can cause cancer of the urinary bladder, especially in males."
Saccharin
[78] supported · niche source
The rat bladder cancer findings led to mandatory warning labels on saccharin-containing products and regulatory bans in several countries.
"These findings led to mandatory warning labels on products containing saccharin and regulatory bans in several countries."
The Safety of Saccharin: An Analysis of Health Effects and Market Dynamics (2025)
[79] supported · primary source
The Price et al. study's reliability was questioned because the animals with tumors had urinary tract calcification and bladder parasites, both known to contribute to bladder tumors in rodents.
"including the presence of urinary tract calcification and bladder parasites in the animals with tumors, both conditions known to contribute to the development of bladder tumors"
Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence - PMC
[80] supported · niche source
The FDA proposed banning saccharin in 1977 because animal studies showed it causes cancer.
"In 1977, the FDA proposed that saccharin be banned because of the studies showing that it causes cancer in animals."
Saccharin