For over three decades, a petition to ban the food additive Butylated Hydroxyanisole, or BHA, has been awaiting a response from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This raises serious questions about the safety of this common preservative found in thousands of food products.
BHA is used to prevent fats in foods from going rancid, extending shelf life. You can find it in a wide array of products, including cured meats, cereals, potato chips, vegetable oils, and even some food packaging. Beyond food, BHA is also utilized in rubber, plastics, and adhesives. Alarmingly, over 4,600 food items currently contain BHA, despite growing concerns about its potential health risks. Numerous studies suggest that BHA may be carcinogenic to humans through dietary exposure.
Since 1958, the FDA has classified BHA as “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or GRAS. This designation occurred when Congress established the pre-market food additive review process. Crucially, this GRAS status meant BHA was permitted in food without undergoing a formal FDA safety review.
However, in 1978, a committee tasked by the White House to reassess GRAS substances reviewed BHA and identified “uncertainties”. This panel recommended further investigation into BHA’s toxicity, particularly its effects on the liver. Despite these red flags, the FDA allowed BHA to remain on the market with its GRAS classification intact.
Since then, concerns have mounted. California’s Proposition 65 listed BHA as a known carcinogen in 1990. The National Toxicology Program followed suit in 1991, classifying it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”.
The European Union is also currently scrutinizing BHA for its potential to disrupt the endocrine system. Research indicates BHA can negatively impact reproductive health, including reduced sperm quality in males and uterine issues in females. Further studies have linked BHA exposure to immune system alterations, hormone disruption, and other toxic effects.
The Unanswered Petition to Ban BHA
Dr. Glenn Scott submitted a petition to the FDA in 1990, advocating for a ban on Bha In Food. His petition cited existing research linking BHA to cancer and damage to vital organs like the liver, lungs, and esophagus.
The scientific evidence linking BHA to health problems has only strengthened in the decades since 1990. Yet, the FDA has remained largely silent on Dr. Scott’s petition.
While the FDA opened a public comment period on the petition in 1990, extending it into 1991 at the request of industry groups, no further action has been taken. The FDA’s website merely states the petition is “under review,” a status that has persisted for over 30 years.
Legally, the FDA is mandated to respond to food additive petitions within 180 days. In the case of BHA, this deadline has been missed an astounding 64 times. While other regulatory bodies have responded to the growing body of evidence concerning BHA’s risks, the FDA’s inaction allows this potentially harmful additive to remain in thousands of food products, from everyday groceries to popular brands.
A Systemic Problem: The FDA’s Food Chemical Review Process
The FDA’s handling of BHA is not an isolated incident. A staggering 99 percent of new food chemicals introduced since 2000 were deemed safe by the food and chemical industry itself, not the FDA.
Even when the FDA does conduct safety assessments, the process is often slow and rarely involves re-evaluation, even when new scientific evidence emerges. This means a significant portion of chemicals in our food supply have not been rigorously reviewed for safety in decades, if at all.
The FDA is not obligated to reassess the safety of food chemicals once they are approved. Consequently, re-evaluations are infrequent, even when petitions are filed or credible links to health harms are established.
A similar example is Red Dye No. 3. In 1990, the FDA banned some uses of Red Dye No. 3 due to cancer concerns at high doses. However, 34 years later, Red Dye No. 3 is still permitted in food, and the FDA has yet to respond to a 2022 petition urging action on its continued use.
Artificial food colorings, in general, haven’t undergone comprehensive reviews in over 40 years, despite mounting evidence suggesting they can harm children’s brain development.
State Actions and the Path Forward
Frustrated by federal inaction, some states are taking proactive steps to protect consumers from potentially harmful food chemicals.
California became the first state in 2023 to ban four toxic chemicals in food, including Red Dye No. 3. Following California’s lead, similar legislation to ban harmful food additives is being considered in other states, including proposals to ban BHA in New York and Pennsylvania.
The FDA is currently undergoing a reorganization of its food program, aiming to develop a process for reassessing food chemicals already on the market. However, the specifics of this program and its effectiveness in protecting consumers from chemicals like BHA remain uncertain. For meaningful change, the FDA must establish a system that dedicates sufficient resources to thoroughly evaluate chemicals for all potential health risks and efficiently remove unsafe chemicals from our food supply.
Fortunately, safer alternatives to BHA exist. The Center for Science in the Public Interest notes that Vitamin E can serve as a substitute for BHA, and research highlights the antioxidant properties of natural oils as potential replacements.
What You Can Do
The FDA is currently seeking public input on its post-market food chemical review process. You can voice your opinion and emphasize the importance of establishing a robust system that removes harmful chemicals like BHA from our food.
While we await stronger regulations at the state and federal levels, consumers can take steps to reduce their intake of potentially harmful food ingredients by carefully reading food labels and making informed choices.
