RFK Jr. Seeks To End Rule Allowing Food Companies To Bypass FDA Ingredient Approval

[Swordsmyth]

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on March 10 that it is seeking to terminate a rule allowing food manufacturers to use additives without formal regulatory approval.
The Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) rule allows companies to self-approve the inclusion of additives in food items without requiring a review and the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The rule enables manufacturers to add an ingredient even if the FDA has not determined its safety.

On Monday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the acting FDA commissioner to explore the possibility of eliminating the “self-affirmed GRAS pathway” available to companies, the department said in a statement.

“This will enhance the FDA’s oversight of ingredients considered to be GRAS and bring transparency to American consumers,” HHS said.

More at:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/rfk-jr-seeks-end-rule-allowing-food-companies-bypass-fda-ingredient-approval

RFK Jr. Seeks To End Rule Allowing Food Companies To Bypass FDA Ingredient Approval | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[unknown]

Wonder why he can't just eliminate it.

 

[ClaytonB]

Wonder why he can't just eliminate it.

Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. Something is better than nothing. This is a start. Baby-steps. Let's not nay-say every positive news-item, it's just black-pilling....

 

[Madison320]

Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. Something is better than nothing. This is a start. Baby-steps. Let's not nay-say every positive news-item, it's just black-pilling....

I need to know more before I consider this to be a positive. Is it really a positive to be forced to get government approval for all food?

 

[ClaytonB]

I need to know more before I consider this to be a positive. Is it really a positive to be forced to get government approval for all food?

It's not.

Let me use a metaphor. When a trauma patient is taken to the ER, they may be anesthetized and placed on broad-spectrum antibiotics in preparation for surgery. The surgery itself is destructive of body tissue, the antibiotics and anesthetic both have a whole litany of side-effects, etc. etc. These are all bad things... locally. But the purpose of these bad things is to accomplish a good end.

Full-on tyranny is never the cure. Like a groomer luring children with candy, the Deep State keeps saying, "Things are so broken that we need tyranny!" They've literally said this, I can't remember the headline atm. Tyranny would be like shooting the ER trauma patient. However, surgery is also "violent" and invasive. So saying, "That's invasive of our freedoms" is conflating surgery with shooting the trauma patient. Surgery and shooting the patient are two separate things, and WTP staying perpetually confused about that distinction is part of the bag-of-tricks the DS keeps using to keep spinning us around in circles while we gradually bleed out on the ER operating table!!

For nearly a century, we have had Wild West anarchy for anybody who is part of the DS super-organism, and regulatory nanny-state tyranny for everybody else. Yes, extending the nanny-state to freeze the DS too is "bad" in the sense that it is expanding a power we need to eliminate. However, this will objectively put the brakes on the criminal activity that the DS has been getting away with for nearly a century, unchecked. FIrst, we have to apply the brakes and slow this runaway train down... then, we need to switch tracks to get out of the path of the oncoming train of catastrophe. Switching tracks on a runaway train is a pointless exercise.

 

[Snowball]

I need to know more before I consider this to be a positive. Is it really a positive to be forced to get government approval for all food?

Yes, it is. Your only protection against eating freaking POISON.

 

[unknown]

Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. Something is better than nothing. This is a start. Baby-steps. Let's not nay-say every positive news-item, it's just black-pilling....

I'm with you.

Was asking from more of a procedural perspective.

In the land of the unelected bureaucrat, seemed like they just did whatever they wanted.

 

[CCTelander]

I need to know more before I consider this to be a positive. Is it really a positive to be forced to get government approval for all food?

Nope. It’s a negative, pure and simple. But there will no doubt be plenty here to argue otherwise.

So-called “liberty advocates” will argue in favor of increased govt. regulation. We just keep winning and winning.

 

[unknown]

I need to know more before I consider this to be a positive. Is it really a positive to be forced to get government approval for all food?

All of these agencies should be dissolved.

But that's not RFKs mindset.

He's coming from the perspective, that if they do exist, atleast do something.

At this point, they essentially exist in order to promote poisons.

 

[ClaytonB]

Nope. It’s a negative, pure and simple. But there will no doubt be plenty here to argue otherwise.

So-called “liberty advocates” will argue in favor of increased govt. regulation. We just keep winning and winning.

I am a philosophical anarchist (actually, theological anarchist, but that's a separate topic), my support of RFK Jr. has nothing to do with Trump. We have a snakes' den of unchecked Federal bureaucracies that need to be reined in hard. This is a runaway train. Ideally, we would simply cut these bureaucracies and the associated spending, etc. But 90+% of the American public is under Marxist mind-control thanks to generations of indoctrination in government schools. Good luck persuading them to follow the "ideal" plan. Trump is a possible route to real change. It's as sketchy as walking a high-wire across the piranha-infested Amazon while juggling howler monkeys. But it's possible, and possible is the white-pill, here. So, yes, use the existing lawful authorities that the Federal government has to freeze those parts of the Deep State that are out-of-control. Then, once these entities are frozen, they will be much easier to kill, that is, to cut budget/headcount, roll back regulations, etc. The black-pill isn't "realistic", it's just a guaranteed loss...

 

[Swordsmyth]

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told food executives that removing artificial food dyes is an urgent priority.

Attendees of the meeting with Kennedy included the CEOs of PepsiCo North America, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Tyson Foods, W.K. Kellogg and J.M. Smucker.

In January, the Food and Drug Administration revoked its authorization of one type of red food dye called Red No. 3.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/12/rfk-jr-pressures-pepsico-kraft-heinz-to-remove-artificial-dyes.html

Loading…

www.cnbc.com

 

[Madison320]

Nope. It’s a negative, pure and simple. But there will no doubt be plenty here to argue otherwise.

So-called “liberty advocates” will argue in favor of increased govt. regulation. We just keep winning and winning.

I seem to remember RFK saying he was against outlawing things. He said he just wanted to have more information available to the consumer and let the consumer decide voluntarily if they wanted to use the product. This seems like a government ban.

 

[Madison320]

Yes, it is. Your only protection against eating freaking POISON.

The government is our only protection against eating poison? Are you being serious?

 

[ClaytonB]

I seem to remember RFK saying he was against outlawing things. He said he just wanted to have more information available to the consumer and let the consumer decide voluntarily if they wanted to use the product. This seems like a government ban.

When the full truth comes out, people are going to remember food dyes and many other additives that the FDA approved the same way we remember those foot-X-Ray machines they used to use for sizing children's shoes -- casually exposing them to cancer of course. How could people ever have been so stupid, reckless and insane? We need to get the government out of the business of policing food but given that it is in that business for the foreseeable future, we need to use those authorities to stop the most extreme and reckless activities going on right now. "The market" would never allow people to sell poison because a true free market has free-flowing reputation information, which swiftly crushes swindlers, frauds and other crooks. The purpose of the FDA and similar agencies is to squelch reputation information by substituting the FDA's monopolistic assessment. When that assessment is weaponized, we have the situation where an entire nation is feeding its children actual poison, while the nation's doctors line up like trained seals and clap...

 

[Invisible Man]

I need to know more before I consider this to be a positive. Is it really a positive to be forced to get government approval for all food?

Absolutely not. RFK should be talking about ending the FDA, not ending loopholes that allow companies to bypass it.

 

[Invisible Man]

All of these agencies should be dissolved.

But that's not RFKs mindset.

He's coming from the perspective, that if they do exist, atleast do something.

At this point, they essentially exist in order to promote poisons.

No, that's not where he's coming from. He's coming from a perspective where they ought to exist, and they ought to be more powerful.

 

[FineSpeech]

Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth. Something is better than nothing. This is a start. Baby-steps. Let's not nay-say every positive news-item, it's just black-pilling....

All criticism is blackpilling to some people.

 

[Madison320]

Absolutely not. RFK should be talking about ending the FDA, not ending loopholes that allow companies to bypass it.

I think you can make an argument that a product should come with a warning if there's a known hazard. There's a thing called an implied warranty where the product you sell should be as intended. Dave Smith had a good example where if you sell food but it's actually rat poison, that's clearly a crime. So if you sell a loaf of bread you expect it should actually be bread not toxins. Anyway I used to be opposed to all labeling requirements but now I think it may be a good compromise. But I don't like the idea of an outright ban.

 

[nikcers]

The government is our only protection against eating poison? Are you being serious?

Sure its not the only protection but since the industrial revolution happened and we aren't all farmers and since the big farmer industrial complex has more guns than me and we don't have land to farm our own foods it would be nice if we could buy food at the store that doesn't make people sick and since so many people are currently eating foods that make them sick which taxes me because the healthcare industrial complex gets to tax me because they have more guns than I do so natural law states that the only way to reduce this tax is to have foods in the store that doesn't make people sick.

The only other option would be literally overthrowing the government. The Declaration of Independence states that you should explore other options first before overthrowing the government.

 

[Madison320]

Sure its not the only protection but since the industrial revolution happened and we aren't all farmers and since the big farmer industrial complex has more guns than me and we don't have land to farm our own foods it would be nice if we could buy food at the store that doesn't make people sick and since so many people are currently eating foods that make them sick which taxes me because the healthcare industrial complex gets to tax me because they have more guns than I do so natural law states that the only way to reduce this tax is to have foods in the store that doesn't make people sick.

The only other option would be literally overthrowing the government.

You're assuming the government can do that. Normally they make things worse.

What about tobacco, should we ban that? That's got to be worse than red dye #3.

What about beer?