From TikTok Myths to Facts: Unveiling the Reality of American Food Safety

This article aims to debunk the myths and misconceptions floating around social media by providing a detailed, fact-based comparison of food safety regulations between the U.S., the EU, and the UK. We’ll delve into the intricate complexities of food safety standards, highlighting the rigorous measures enforced across the Atlantic. Our goal? To put to rest the smug superiority some of our European friends love to flaunt. Will they ignore the facts and continue basking in their bubble of self-righteousness? Probably. But at least we can confidently say that bubble is filled with hot air and stale baguettes. So, sit back, grab a snack (preferably one with a transparent ingredient list), and let’s dive into the reality of food safety on both sides of the pond.

U.S. Food Safety Standards

Regulatory Framework

The United States has a robust food safety system overseen by multiple federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2011 is a key piece of legislation aimed at preventing foodborne illnesses through proactive measures and stringent safety protocols. The FSMA requires food producers to implement risk-based preventive controls, maintain proper sanitation, and ensure proper handling practices to prevent contamination (FoodDocs, 2021).

The U.S. also employs the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system, which identifies potential hazards in the food production process and implements critical control points to mitigate risks. HACCP, initially developed for NASA’s space food program, has become a global standard for food safety and is mandatory for meat, poultry, and seafood industries in the U.S. (Fortin, 2015).

Budget and Resources

The U.S. food safety system is well-funded, with significant budget allocations for the FDA, USDA, and CDC. For instance, in 2023, the FDA’s budget for food safety activities was approximately $1.5 billion, reflecting the high priority placed on maintaining and improving food safety standards (FDA Budget, 2023). Similarly, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) received around $1 billion to ensure the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products (USDA Budget, 2023). These substantial budgets enable these agencies to conduct rigorous inspections and enforce food safety regulations effectively (Tilley Distribution, 2023).

The FDA’s “New Era of Smarter Food Safety” initiative, launched in 2020, aims to modernize the food safety system by incorporating advanced technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices to improve traceability and prevent contamination (FoodDocs, 2021). This initiative is part of a broader effort to enhance the FDA’s regulatory framework and ensure that the U.S. food supply remains among the safest in the world.

Inspection and Compliance

Food safety inspections in the U.S. are conducted by both federal and state agencies. The FDA oversees about 78% of the U.S. food supply, including dairy, seafood, produce, and packaged foods, while the USDA regulates meat, poultry, and some egg products (Grossman, 2023). The FDA and USDA use a risk-based approach to determine the frequency of inspections, with high-risk facilities inspected more frequently than low-risk ones.

The FSMA has significantly expanded the FDA’s authority, allowing it to mandate recalls, implement preventive controls, and enforce safety standards for both domestic and imported foods (Fortin, 2015). Additionally, the FSMA introduced the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP), which requires U.S. importers to verify that their foreign suppliers meet U.S. food safety standards. This program ensures that imported foods are held to the same safety standards as domestically produced foods, thereby protecting American consumers from potential hazards in the global food supply chain (FDA, 2022).

European Food Safety Standards

@imyvanabee2

Europeans everytime i make a video talking about food quality and safety being better in the USA than in most european countries, they’re retort is: coming from a country with cheese in a can… well guess what… Americans are also feeding into this misconception which isn’t making it better. #america #american #usa #americanfood #americavseurope #europe #eu

♬ original sound – Yvana | opinions & debates

Regulatory Framework

European food safety standards are overseen by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and various national agencies. The EU’s approach to food safety is often seen as stricter than that of the U.S., particularly regarding food additives and chemical substances. The EFSA plays a crucial role in evaluating and monitoring food safety risks across all 27 member states of the European Union. Unlike the FDA, the EFSA isn’t strictly associated with a single government, which adds a layer of complexity to its regulatory framework. The EFSA’s stringent regulations ensure that any food additive or chemical must be proven safe before approval, adhering to the precautionary principle, which means that if a food product’s safety is uncertain, it can be banned or restricted until proven safe (EFSA, 2023) .

For instance, the use of potassium bromate, a common food additive in the U.S., is banned in the EU due to its potential health risks. Additionally, the EU has stringent regulations on the use of chlorine-washed chicken, which is permitted in the U.S. but banned in the EU. The precautionary approach adopted by the EU contrasts with the U.S. regulatory framework, which often allows new food ingredients unless proven harmful (National Environmental Health Association, 2024) .

The EU also implements the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system, but with some differences in execution compared to the U.S. The EU’s regulations focus more on minimizing the use of certain chemicals and additives, while the U.S. system emphasizes overall process control and prevention of contamination.

Budget and Resources

The EFSA and other national food safety agencies in Europe are well-funded, although budget allocations vary by country. The EFSA’s annual budget is around €80 million, which supports its activities in risk assessment, research, and regulatory oversight (EFSA, 2023). While this budget is smaller than that of the FDA, the decentralized nature of the EU’s food safety system means that additional resources are provided by member states. This decentralized approach allows for tailored regulations that address specific national concerns while maintaining overall EU standards (EFSA, 2023) .

Specific Regulations

The EU bans several food additives and chemicals that are allowed in the U.S. For example, potassium bromate, BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole), BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene), and brominated vegetable oil are prohibited in the EU due to health concerns (Well With Rae, 2023) . The precautionary principle adopted by the EU ensures that only substances proven to be safe are permitted, contrasting with the U.S. approach of allowing substances unless proven harmful (FoodDocs, 2021) .

Additionally, the EU has more rigorous labeling requirements compared to the U.S. Food products in the EU must include clear ingredient lists, allergen information, and nutritional facts, with country-of-origin labeling also being mandatory. This comprehensive labeling is part of the EU’s commitment to transparency and consumer safety (EFSA, 2023)​.

Comparative Analysis

The difference in food safety regulations between the U.S. and the EU highlights a fundamental contrast in regulatory philosophy. The U.S. tends to prioritize industry flexibility and innovation, often adopting a more reactive approach to food safety. In contrast, the EU’s precautionary principle places greater emphasis on preemptive safety measures and consumer protection. This approach can be seen in the EU’s ban on numerous food additives and its stringent pesticide residue limits, which are often more rigorous than those in the U.S. (Well With Rae, 2023) ​

Furthermore, while both the U.S. and the EU employ the HACCP system, the EU’s application is more focused on reducing the use of potentially harmful substances, whereas the U.S. HACCP system is more concerned with overall process control and contamination prevention. This difference in emphasis reflects the broader regulatory philosophies of the two regions.

In conclusion, while European food safety standards are often seen as stricter than those in the U.S., both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. The EU’s stringent approach offers robust consumer protection, but it can also pose challenges for food producers. The U.S. system, on the other hand, provides greater flexibility and innovation but may allow for the use of substances that are restricted or banned in Europe. Understanding these differences is crucial for consumers, regulators, and food producers navigating the complex landscape of international food safety standards.

Comparison of Food Safety Systems

Global Food Security Index (GFSI) Rankings

The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) ranks countries based on various factors, including food safety, availability, and affordability. In recent years, the U.S., EU, and UK have all ranked highly on the GFSI, reflecting their robust food safety systems. For instance, in the 2023 GFSI, the U.S. ranked 13th overall for food quality and safety, while the UK and several EU countries were also in the top 20. However, when you only consider the quality and safety of food, the USA ranks 3rd in the world.  The only European country to rank higher was Denmark.

Foodborne Illness Rates

Foodborne illness rates provide a tangible measure of the effectiveness of food safety systems. The U.S. reported a foodborne illness rate of 15.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2019, while the EU reported 14.2 cases per 100,000 people in the same year. These similar rates indicate that both regions maintain high standards of food safety despite different regulatory approaches (Journal of Environmental Health, 2024)​ (In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) works diligently to maintain food safety, resulting in comparable foodborne illness rates to those of the U.S. and EU.

Overall Safety and Effectiveness

Despite differences in specific regulations, both the U.S. and the EU have comprehensive food safety systems designed to protect consumers. The EU’s precautionary principle often leads to the banning of substances suspected of being harmful, while the U.S. focuses on controlling their use and ensuring safety through rigorous testing and monitoring (Kapała, 2021)​  This approach has led to a robust food safety system in both regions, albeit with different methodologies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employs a science-based regulatory framework, focusing on prevention through the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The FSMA emphasizes proactive measures to prevent foodborne illnesses rather than reacting to outbreaks (FDA, 2022)​ . This system, supported by significant budgets and resources, ensures that the U.S. maintains high food safety standards.

In contrast, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and national agencies within the EU focus on stringent regulations for food additives and chemical substances. For example, the use of potassium bromate, a common food additive in the U.S., is banned in the EU due to its potential health risks. Similarly, the EU prohibits the use of chlorine-washed chicken, which is permitted in the U.S. (Well With Rae, 2023)​​. These regulations reflect the EU’s precautionary approach to food safety.

The UK’s food safety standards, overseen by the FSA, continue to align closely with those of the EU post-Brexit. The UK also employs the HACCP system and maintains strict regulations on food additives and labeling, similar to the EU (Tilley Distribution, 2023)​​. This consistency ensures that the UK upholds high food safety standards, contributing to its strong ranking in the GFSI.

Comparative Analysis

One significant point of comparison is the regulatory philosophy. The U.S. system, while rigorous, allows certain additives and substances under controlled conditions, emphasizing monitoring and enforcement. The EU, on the other hand, adopts a more cautious approach, banning substances that are suspected of being harmful unless proven otherwise. This difference in approach is evident in the handling of food additives and processing aids, such as chlorine washes for poultry and certain food dyes.

Budget allocations also play a crucial role in food safety. The FDA’s budget for food safety activities is substantial, supporting extensive research, monitoring, and enforcement activities. Similarly, the EFSA and national food safety agencies in Europe are well-funded, although the decentralized nature of the EU’s food safety system means that additional resources are provided by member states. The UK’s FSA is also well-supported, ensuring that it can effectively oversee food safety across the country (EFSA, 2023)​.

In conclusion, both the U.S. and the EU have robust food safety systems designed to protect consumers. While their regulatory approaches differ, both systems are effective in ensuring food safety. The UK, maintaining alignment with EU standards post-Brexit, continues to uphold high food safety standards. This comprehensive comparison highlights that food safety in the U.S. is not inferior to that in Europe, despite the criticisms often seen on social media.

Ingredient Labeling: U.S. vs. Europe

Transparency and Detail

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires comprehensive labeling on all food products, including detailed ingredient lists and nutritional information. This transparency allows consumers to make informed choices and ensures that all additives and ingredients are disclosed. For example, in the U.S., food labels must explicitly list each ingredient by its common name, making it easier for consumers to recognize and understand what they are consuming. This practice contrasts with European labeling laws, which often use E-numbers for food additives. While E-numbers can standardize and simplify labeling, they can also be less transparent to consumers unfamiliar with the system (Food Safety News, 2023) .

The U.S. system’s focus on detailed labeling provides greater consumer awareness and protection. For instance, while a snack in the U.S. might list multiple artificial colors by their specific names (e.g., Red 40, Yellow 5), the same product in Europe might simply list E-numbers, which require additional effort to decode. This comprehensive approach ensures that consumers in the U.S. are fully aware of all ingredients in their food, promoting transparency and safety.

Case Studies

Examples of differences in ingredient lists for the same products in the U.S. and Europe highlight these practices. For instance, a popular snack brand might list 25 ingredients on its U.S. packaging but only 15 on its European counterpart. This discrepancy often fuels the misconception that U.S. food contains more additives, when in reality, the transparency of U.S. labeling simply provides more detailed information (Well With Rae, 2023) .

One striking example is the labeling of food dyes. In the U.S., food products must list artificial colors by their specific names, such as Red 40 or Yellow 6. In contrast, European products might list these same colors using E-numbers, like E129 or E110. This difference can make U.S. products appear more chemically laden, even though the ingredients are essentially the same. Moreover, some additives banned in Europe, such as certain artificial colors and preservatives, are permitted in the U.S. but must be clearly labeled.

Another case study involves beverages. In the U.S., a soda might list high fructose corn syrup explicitly, whereas in Europe, the same soda might use a different sweetener and list it under a less recognizable name. This difference in labeling practices can lead to confusion and misconceptions about the relative safety and healthiness of the products.

Regulatory Implications

The implications of these labeling differences extend beyond consumer perception. In the U.S., the requirement for detailed labeling supports regulatory oversight and consumer advocacy. By providing explicit ingredient lists, the FDA facilitates the monitoring and regulation of food additives and contaminants. This transparency also empowers consumers to make choices based on dietary needs, allergies, and health concerns.

In Europe, the use of E-numbers, while intended to streamline labeling and harmonize regulations across member states, can obscure the nature of food additives for the average consumer. While E-numbers are standardized and regulated, their abstract nature may require consumers to seek additional information to understand what they are consuming fully.

Overall, both the U.S. and European approaches to ingredient labeling have their strengths and weaknesses. The U.S. system’s emphasis on detailed transparency ensures that consumers have access to comprehensive information about their food, while the European system aims to standardize and simplify labeling across diverse markets. Understanding these differences is crucial for consumers and policymakers alike, as they navigate the complexities of global food safety and regulation.

Common Misconceptions

Myth vs. Reality

One common misconception is that American food is inherently unsafe due to the presence of certain additives and chemicals. However, these substances are regulated and monitored to ensure they are safe for consumption. For instance, the FDA’s rigorous testing protocols for food additives ensure that any approved substance is safe when used according to specified guidelines. The U.S. employs a risk-based approach where substances are allowed unless proven harmful, and this approach has been effective in ensuring food safety .

Another misconception is that European food is entirely free of harmful substances. While the EU does ban certain additives, it still allows others that are also regulated in the U.S. Both regions face challenges in ensuring food safety and employ rigorous systems to address these challenges. For example, the EU has stringent regulations on GMOs and antibiotics in animal agriculture, aiming to reduce antibiotic resistance, which contrasts with the U.S.’s more prevalent use of these substances ​ (

Additionally, the U.S. system mandates comprehensive ingredient labeling, providing consumers with detailed information about the contents of their food. This transparency often leads to the misconception that U.S. food contains more additives compared to European food, whereas the difference lies primarily in labeling practices rather than actual content .

Media Influence

The role of social media in perpetuating misconceptions about American food safety cannot be underestimated. Viral posts and videos often sensationalize differences in food regulations, leading to misinformation and heightened public concern. Platforms like TikTok and Facebook amplify these messages, sometimes without a factual basis, contributing to widespread belief in these myths. For instance, videos highlighting differences in ingredient lists between U.S. and European products often lack context about the regulatory frameworks behind these differences .

It’s crucial to rely on verified data and expert analysis to form accurate opinions about food safety standards. Misinformation can lead to unnecessary fear and mistrust in food safety systems. By understanding the complexities and nuances of food safety regulations in both the U.S. and Europe, consumers can make more informed choices without falling prey to sensationalized and inaccurate portrayals .

Scientific Perspective

From a scientific standpoint, both the U.S. and European systems have strengths and areas for improvement. The precautionary principle adopted by the EU aims to prevent harm before it occurs by banning potentially harmful substances unless proven safe. This principle is evident in the EU’s strict regulations on food additives and GMOs ​The Reality of Food Safety

Complexity of Food Safety

Food safety is a multifaceted issue that both the U.S. and the EU take very seriously. Both regions have stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that food is safe for consumers. The differences in regulations often reflect differing cultural attitudes towards food and safety rather than a difference in the actual safety of the food itself. For instance, the U.S. adopts a risk-based approach where substances are permitted unless proven harmful, whereas the EU follows the precautionary principle, banning substances until they are proven safe.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the EU both employ rigorous methods to monitor and control food safety. The FDA’s oversight covers around 80% of the U.S. food supply, ensuring that additives and other substances are safe for consumption. The EFSA, on the other hand, provides scientific advice and communicates risks associated with the food supply in the EU, guiding policy and regulatory decisions.

Efforts and Challenges

Continuous efforts are made to improve food safety in the U.S., EU, and UK. These include advancements in food safety technology, improved regulatory frameworks, and ongoing research into foodborne pathogens and contaminants. For instance, the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) focuses on preventing contamination before it occurs, enhancing the traceability of food products, and modernizing food safety practices.

Despite these efforts, challenges remain, such as the globalization of food supply chains and the emergence of new food safety risks. The complexity of global food supply chains can make it difficult to trace the source of contamination. Additionally, new pathogens and contaminants continually emerge, requiring constant vigilance and adaptation of food safety protocols. For example, foodborne illnesses are a significant concern globally, with millions of cases reported each year, leading to substantial public health burdens.

Both regions face the challenge of maintaining high food safety standards in a rapidly changing global market. The EFSA has the daunting task of aligning and enforcing food regulations for all 27 member nations of the European Union, which involves navigating complex geopolitical dynamics. Similarly, the FDA must oversee an extensive and diverse food system in the U.S., balancing industry interests with consumer safety.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the notion that American food is inherently unsafe is not only a misconception but a testament to the misinformation perpetuated by a vocal minority. While our European friends might revel in their perceived superiority, claiming that their food is pure and free from the supposed toxicities of American fare, the facts tell a different story. The rigorous food safety systems in the U.S. are on par with, and in some cases exceed, those in Europe. Both the U.S. and the EU have robust regulatory frameworks designed to protect consumers from foodborne illnesses and ensure food safety. The differences in specific regulations often reflect cultural attitudes and regulatory philosophies rather than a disparity in actual safety.

It’s amusing to observe the hypocrisy: Europeans boasting about their banned additives while conveniently overlooking the stringent, transparent labeling and rigorous testing protocols that are hallmarks of the American food safety system. They might enjoy pointing fingers at the higher obesity rates in the U.S., yet fail to acknowledge that these rates are influenced more by portion sizes and lifestyle choices than by the inherent quality of the food. Meanwhile, European cities’ walkability and portion control play significant roles in their own public health statistics.

So next time you hear a smug comment about American food being poison, remember that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have implemented some of the most comprehensive food safety regulations in the world. The Global Food Security Index, which ranks the U.S. higher in food safety than almost all European countries, is a testament to this fact. Only Denmark manages to edge out the U.S., and even then, it’s a close call.

In the end, both the U.S. and the EU have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to food safety. The precautionary principle in the EU ensures a cautious approach, banning substances until proven safe, while the U.S.’s risk-based approach allows for innovation and flexibility. Both systems are effective, yet they cater to different regulatory philosophies and consumer expectations.

So, dear Europeans, while you might enjoy your moment of self-righteous indignation, remember that food safety is a complex, multifaceted issue that both sides of the Atlantic tackle with diligence and dedication. Perhaps it’s time to abandon the superiority complex and appreciate the diverse approaches that ultimately aim to achieve the same goal: keeping our food safe and our populations healthy. After all, isn’t it more satisfying to celebrate our common achievements than to dwell on imagined differences?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Questions Europeans Might Ask

1. Is American food really filled with harmful chemicals and banned substances?
   • No, American food safety regulations, overseen by the FDA and other agencies, enforce rigorous testing and monitoring of food additives and substances to ensure they are safe for consumption.
2. Why does American food have so many additives compared to European food?
   • The U.S. food labeling system is more transparent, listing every ingredient explicitly, whereas Europe often uses E-numbers. This makes U.S. food appear to have more additives when it may not.
3. Is it true that the U.S. bans more color food additives than Europe?
   • Yes, the U.S. actually bans more color food additives compared to Europe, contrary to popular belief.
4. Why are obesity rates higher in the U.S. than in Europe?
   • Higher obesity rates in the U.S. are influenced more by larger portion sizes and lifestyle factors, such as less walkability in cities, rather than the inherent quality of the food itself.
5. Are food safety standards in the U.S. less strict than in Europe?
   • No, both regions have stringent food safety standards, but they differ in approach. The U.S. uses a risk-based approach, while Europe follows the precautionary principle.
6. How often are food safety inspections conducted in the U.S.?
   • The frequency of food safety inspections in the U.S. varies by state and local regulations, but they are generally conducted regularly to ensure compliance with safety standards.
7. Do American restaurants have to display their health inspection grades?
   • Yes, in many U.S. states, restaurants are required to display their health inspection grades publicly, providing transparency and encouraging higher standards of hygiene.
8. What is the role of the FDA in food safety?
   • The FDA oversees the safety of most food products in the U.S., setting standards, conducting inspections, and enforcing regulations to protect public health.
9. How does the U.S. handle foodborne illness outbreaks?
   • The U.S. has a robust system for handling foodborne illness outbreaks, including rapid response teams, extensive traceability systems, and public communication strategies.
10. Are GMOs more common in American food?
    • Yes, GMOs are more widely used in the U.S. compared to Europe, but they are subject to stringent safety assessments and regulations.
11. Is chlorine-washed chicken safe to eat?
    • Yes, chlorine-washed chicken is considered safe by the FDA, and it is used to reduce bacterial contamination. However, it is banned in Europe due to differing regulatory standards.
12. Why are some artificial colors banned in Europe but allowed in the U.S.?
    • Regulatory approaches differ; the U.S. may allow certain substances under controlled conditions, while Europe may ban them outright based on precautionary measures.
13. Does the U.S. have stricter labeling requirements than Europe?
    • Yes, the U.S. requires more detailed ingredient labeling, providing comprehensive information about the contents of food products.
14. Are food additives like potassium bromate and BHA used in the U.S.?
    • Potassium bromate and BHA are permitted in the U.S. under specific conditions, but they are banned in Europe due to health concerns.
15. How does the U.S. ensure the safety of imported foods?
    • The FDA and USDA regulate imported foods, requiring that they meet the same safety standards as domestically produced food.

Questions Americans Might Ask

1. Are European food safety standards stricter than those in the U.S.?
   • European food safety standards are stringent, focusing on the precautionary principle, but U.S. standards are equally rigorous, emphasizing risk-based assessments.
2. Why do European products have fewer ingredients listed?
   • European labeling often uses E-numbers for additives, which can make ingredient lists appear shorter compared to the detailed labeling required in the U.S.
3. What is the precautionary principle used in Europe?
   • The precautionary principle in Europe bans substances that might be harmful unless they are proven safe, in contrast to the U.S. approach of allowing substances unless proven harmful.
4. Do European countries conduct regular food safety inspections?
   • Yes, European countries have regular food safety inspections, but the system and transparency of these inspections can vary widely between countries.
5. Is food safety better in Europe than in the U.S.?
   • Both regions have high food safety standards. Differences in approach reflect cultural and regulatory philosophies rather than overall safety.
6. Why is chlorine-washed chicken banned in Europe but allowed in the U.S.?
   • Europe bans chlorine-washed chicken due to concerns about masking poor hygiene practices, while the U.S. allows it as an effective measure to reduce bacterial contamination.
7. How do U.S. and European food safety agencies compare?
   • The FDA in the U.S. and the EFSA in Europe both play crucial roles in food safety, with different regulatory approaches but similar goals of protecting public health.
8. Are there any benefits to the U.S. risk-based food safety approach?
   • The U.S. risk-based approach allows for innovation and flexibility in food production, ensuring safety through rigorous testing and monitoring.
9. What are the most common foodborne illnesses in the U.S. and Europe?
   • Common foodborne illnesses include salmonella, E. coli, and norovirus, with both regions implementing measures to prevent and control outbreaks.
10. How do food safety budgets in the U.S. and Europe compare?
    • The FDA and USDA have substantial budgets to ensure food safety, while the EFSA and national agencies in Europe are also well-funded but operate within a more decentralized system.
11. Are GMOs regulated differently in the U.S. and Europe?
    • Yes, GMOs are more widely accepted and used in the U.S., subject to stringent safety assessments, while Europe has more restrictive regulations.
12. Do European countries have health inspection grading systems?
    • Some European countries have hygiene rating systems, but they are not as uniformly enforced or publicly displayed as the grading systems in many U.S. states.
13. Why are artificial colors like Red 40 allowed in the U.S. but banned in Europe?
    • Differences in regulatory philosophies lead to varying decisions on food additives, with Europe taking a more precautionary approach.
14. How does the U.S. handle recalls of contaminated food products?
    • The FDA and USDA have robust recall systems in place, quickly identifying and removing contaminated products from the market to protect public health.
15. What are the penalties for non-compliance with food safety regulations in the U.S.?
    • Penalties for non-compliance can include fines, closure of facilities, and legal action, ensuring that food producers adhere to safety standards.

References

• Agriculture development, pesticide application and its impact on the environment. (2021). Environmental Research and Public Health.
• Antibiotic resistance. (2020). World Health Organization.
• Azodicarbonamide (ADA) frequently asked questions. (2018). FDA.
• Beta agonists in livestock feed: Status, health concerns, and international trade. (2014). Journal of Animal Science.
• Biochemical and pathological changes in rats fed brominated cottonseed oil for 80 days. (1969). Food and Cosmetics Toxicology.
• Brominated vegetable oil. (2022). FDA.
• Brominated vegetable oil (BVO). (2022). Center for Science in the Public Interest.
• Bromism from excessive cola consumption. (2008). Clinical Toxicology.
• Butylated hydroxyanisole. Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition. (2021). National Toxicology Program.
• Center for Food Safety | About rbGH. (n.d.). Center for Food Safety.
• Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. (2016). Frontiers in Public Health.
• Chlorinated chicken: How safe is it? (2019). BBC News.
• Consumer group calls for ban on “flour improver” potassium bromate termed a cancer threat. (1999). Center for Science in the Public Interest.
• Council decision of 17 December 1999 concerning the placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing decision 90/218/EEC. (1999). EUR-Lex.
• CPSC warns of banned “Kinder Chocolate Eggs” containing toys which can pose choking, aspiration hazards to young children. (2006). Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• Differences in energy and nutrient content of menu items served by large chain restaurants in the USA and the UK in 2018. (2022). Public Health Nutrition.
• Diet and nutrition: The artificial food dye blues. (2010). Environmental Health Perspectives.
• EFSA concludes review of new scientific data on potential risks to human health from certain hormone residues in beef. (2007). European Food Safety Authority.
• EFSA evaluates safety of ractopamine in feed. (2009). European Food Safety Authority.
• EFSA opinion on four substances used to decontaminate poultry carcasses: Assessment of effects on bacterial tolerance and antimicrobial resistance. (2008). European Food Safety Authority.
• EFSA publishes further evaluation on semicarbazide in food. (2006). European Food Safety Authority.
• Endocrine disrupting chemicals: Effects on endocrine glands. (2019). Frontiers in Endocrinology.
• EU risk assessor hikes intake safety levels for food additive BHT. (2012). Food Navigator.
• European Union: Titanium dioxide banned as a food additive in the EU. (2022). Global Agricultural Information Network.
• Fact check: PepsiCo pulls contentious BVO from Mountain Dew but it isn’t a flame retardant. (n.d.). USA Today.
• FDA Budget. (2023). FY 2023 Budget Summary.
• Food additives. (n.d.). European Food Safety Authority.
• FoodDocs. (2021). Food Safety Standards Comparison of U.S.A, UK, Canada, Australia.
• Food dyes: A rainbow of risks. (n.d.). Center for Science in the Public Interest.
• Food For Thought: EU vs US Food Regulation: Kitchen Detail. (2023). EBSCO-FullText-2024-06-24.pdf.
• Food in America Compared to the U.K. (Why is it so different?). (2019). Food Babe.
• Food Safety Modernization Act. (2022). FDA.
• Food Safety News. (2023). Food safety standards: Is bridging the international divide possible?.
• Frequently asked questions. (n.d.). Scottish Haggis.
• Generally recognized as secret: Chemicals added to food in the United States. (2014). NDC Report.
• Global Food Security Index. (2023). Food Security Rankings 2023.
• Huge levels of antibiotic use in US farming revealed. (2018). The Guardian.
• IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. (2015). IARC.
• Importance of antibiotic residues in animal food. (2019). Food and Chemical Toxicology.
• Journal of Environmental Health. (2024). Examining Food Safety Inspections: Do They Meet the Grade to Protect Public Health?.
• Kapała, A. (2021). Food Safety Requirements for Short Supply Chains in the Legislation of the European Union, Selected EU Member States and the USA: A Comparative Study. EBSCO-FullText-2024-06-24.pdf.
• Mechanism of carcinogenesis induced by a veterinary antimicrobial drug, nitrofurazone, via oxidative DNA damage and cell proliferation. (2004). Cancer Letters.
• National Environmental Health Association. (2024). Food Safety Culture Diagnostic Toolkit for Inspectors.
• National residue program. (2020). FSIS.
• Navigating the U.S. food additive regulatory program. (2011). Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety.
• Overview of food ingredients, additives & colors. (2018). FDA.
• Post-Brexit deals must not compromise UK food standards, says trade body. (2021). The Guardian.
• Potassium bromate. (1999). INCHEM.
• Propargite RED facts. (2016). EPA.
• Raw milk questions and answers. (2022). CDC.
• Recommendations from Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics included in report for White House conference on hunger, nutrition and health. (2022). Eat Right Pro.
• Rees-Mogg move to axe 2,400 laws is ‘anti-democratic’, say legal experts. (2022). The Guardian.
• Retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill. (2022). UK Parliament.
• Revealed: The true extent of America’s food monopolies, and who pays the price. (2021). The Guardian.
• Russian ban on ractopamine boosts Brazilian exports. (2013). Beef Magazine.
• Sold out. (2020). George Monbiot.
• Stop using antibiotics in healthy animals to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance. (2017). World Health Organization.
• Study: Largest nutritionists’ group captured by food, pharma and agribusiness companies. (2022). US Right to Know.
• Subway to remove ‘dough conditioner’ chemical from bread. (2014). CNN.
• Summary of color additives for use in the United States in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. (2022). FDA.
• Tilley Distribution. (2023). US vs. EU Food Regulations: Understanding the Key Differences.
• The challenges of ractopamine use in meat production for export to European Union and Russia. (2017). Food Control.
• The corporate capture of the nutrition profession in the USA: The case of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2022). Public Health Nutrition.
• The dangers of raw milk: Unpasteurized milk can pose a serious health risk. (2018). FDA.
• The nutritional content of children’s breakfast cereals: A cross-sectional analysis of New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada and the USA. (2019). Public Health Nutrition.
• The public health issue of antibiotic residues in food and feed: Causes, consequences, and potential solutions. (2022). Veterinary World.
• The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides. (2019). Environmental Health.
• Titanium dioxide: E171 no longer considered safe when used as a food additive. (2021). European Food Safety Authority.
• Toxic trade: USA. (2019). Pesticide Action Network UK.
• Toxins on tap: The lurking threat of harmful contaminants in US drinking water. (2017). Environmental Working Group.
• U.S. vs. EU Food Regulations – Tilley Distribution. (2023). EBSCO-FullText-2024-06-24-2.pdf.
• USDA Budget. (2023). USDA Budget Summary FY 2023.
• Well With Rae. (2023). Food Chemicals in America vs. Europe.