The Food we Eat: Our Emerging Public Health Crisis

Taking a Proactive Approach in Your Food Choices

We have heard of the saying, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”—from the 1939 movie, The Wizard of Oz. Only our sense of smell, saliva glands, and the dark void of our stomach approve of some foods we have freely consumed. Growing up, we have all had the experience of consuming foods that simply looked appealing and tasted delicious. However, as we age, these foods significantly contribute to the gradual transformation of our bodies into living laboratories. I urge you to evaluate the foods that enter your stomach and pause for a moment to contemplate the difficult-to-pronounce additives and bioengineered ingredients that you believe are supplying essential vitamins and nutrients, as the manufacturer doesn't care if you receive a diagnosis of colorectal or stomach cancer—the man behind the curtain.

What's Really on Your Plate?

Imagine your ingredients list laid bare. This plate represents the silent, non-nutritive materials we ingest every day. For those unaware, food additives are synthetic or natural substances added to packaged foods to enhance color, flavor, or shelf life.

Food Additives: A Quick History Review

I would rather not put you in a yawning mood but provide you with how additives started to shape the foods we eat. So how do food additives take shape in what we eat? To start off, as the food supply in the United States became more industrialized and centralized, the need for federal oversight of food quality grew.

In the 1890s, the federal government started to take control of certain imported foods. The Pure Food and Drug Act, which passed in 1906, laid the groundwork for modern American food regulation. This law was a big deal because it was the first time the federal government had widespread control over the sale of "adulterated and misbranded food" and drugs.

Later, the structure changed again with the passage of the 1938 Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which was a major step forward in regulatory oversight as the use of chemicals in food production became more advanced.

So what’s up with the Food Additives Amendment?

The Food Additives Amendment established the rules about food composition permanently in 1958. This change gave a broad definition of "food additive" as anything that changes the properties of food or becomes a part of it. It set the rule that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had to do a formal premarket review to confirm that new substances were safe.

However, the 1958 amendment made a critical change: the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) provision. Congress agreed that many food substances didn't need formal premarket review because either they had been used in food for a long time and were safe, or qualified experts agreed that they were safe.

The FDA published the GRAS list in December 1958. Over the coming decades, the GRAS process became more formal. In 1969, President Nixon ordered an evaluation of GRAS substances, which led to the official GRAS Affirmation process in 1972 and the GRAS Notification Program starting in 1997.

The Ingredient Audit

You're actively seeking transparency and rejecting products loaded with artificial colors, fillers, and preservatives, ensuring your choices are based on health and real food, not marketing claims or long shelf life.

Should Food Manufacturers Be Allowed to Self-Regulate?

Regulators often heavily criticize the current GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) system because it gives food makers a lot of freedom to regulate themselves. Critics say that this system makes U.S. food safety less safe because it shifts the responsibility for safety decisions from the FDA to the companies that are regulated. The system lets companies add new chemicals to the market with little outside review.

Manufacturers are required to document and explain the safety of additives internally, but they are not required by law to submit this information for mandatory FDA review. This raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest. If a company decides to tell the FDA about a GRAS determination on its own and the agency asks for more or newer toxicology information, the company can just take back its notice. This move keeps the additive legally on the market while keeping the FDA "in the dark" about why the substance is safe. Reports say that there are more than 1,000 additives in use right now that the FDA has never officially looked at. This shows how weak the system is when it comes to regulation.

The U.S. approach is much more lenient than the European Union's, which requires a mandatory, government-led pre-market assessment that focuses on the long-term health effects on consumers. Because the rules in the U.S. are less strict than in Europe, many additives that are common in the U.S. are banned or heavily restricted there. This difference in how regulators think means that external consumer tools, like the apps talked about in Section IV, must use a precautionary safety standard when the FDA's compliance standard is not seen as good enough.

Section II: The Bioengineered Food Evolution: Technology, Policy, and Market Acceptance

From Lab to Lunch

This isn't just a label; it's a chemical being measured for your meal. E471, a common emulsifier, is one of countless additives carefully formulated and inserted into numerous products. It's designed to change texture, extend shelf life, or blend ingredients seamlessly. When you see such codes, understand they represent deliberate additions, not natural components, making the choice to read labels more critical than ever.

Motivations and Milestones of Genetic Engineering

People have been changing the genetics of food for a long time, starting with the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection around 10,500 BC. But modern genetic engineering changed this process completely. The FDA approved the first use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in U.S. food production in 1988. These GMOs were microbial enzymes. The Flavr Savr tomato was the first genetically modified food to be approved for direct consumption in 1994.

The main reasons for making bioengineered foods (BE) are to make food production more sustainable, cost-effective, and safe for everyone. Some of the main goals are:  

• Increasing the food supply and reducing costs.

• Developing insect-resistant plants, thereby reducing the need for chemical pesticide use.

• Creating disease- and drought-resistant plants, conserving environmental resources like water and fertilizer.

• Enhancing nutritional value, such as the creation of Golden Rice in 2000, which increased nutrient content.  

• Improving specific traits, such as engineering potatoes to produce less of a potential carcinogen when fried.

Key Regulatory Milestones in the US

The FDA published its safety statement in 1992, and there are three federal agencies in the U.S. that oversee GMOs. A lot of research has been done since these foods were first sold in the 1990s, and scientists all agree that bioengineered foods are just as safe and healthy as non-GMO foods. Studies show that GMO foods don't affect health in any way that is different from non-GMO foods, and they don't cause allergic reactions more often than non-GMO foods.

Even though everyone agreed, there were problems with the rules. For example, in 2000, there were StarLink corn recalls, where hundreds of food items were found to have genetically modified maize that had not been approved for human consumption. This showed how hard it is to control the supply chain. In 2016, Congress passed a law that required certain genetically engineered products to be labeled with the term "bioengineered" (BE). This was in response to consumer demand for more information.

The Ideological Divide: Traditional vs. Health Food Store Policies

Quality vs. Convenience: Your Meal's Crossroads

This stark contrast isn't just about taste or calories; it represents a fundamental divide in nutritional quality and impact on your body. Understanding this split empowers you to consciously choose ingredients that nourish and support your health, rather than just fill you up.

The acceptance of bioengineered ingredients in the marketplace shows a big difference between companies that follow the rules and those that don't, as well as between companies that trust their customers and those that don't. Most mainstream stores believe that GMO foods are safe because the FDA says they are, as long as they follow federal labeling rules (NBFDS).

On the other hand, stores that focus on health and wellness, like Whole Foods Market, have much stricter rules. This stricter policy is mainly a way to reduce risk in response to consumer worries about genetic engineering that they see as uncertain or "pseudo-threats."

These health food stores have to follow two important rules:

1. Organic as Non-GMO: Organic certification makes it clear that GMOs can't be used, so organic products are automatically a non-GMO choice.

2. Third-Party Verification: Retailers that sell non-organic products with a non-GMO claim require that the claim be backed up by strict third-party verification, like the Non-GMO Project Verified certification.

This adoption of third-party standards, which goes above and beyond what the federal government requires, is a way for the market to attract and keep health-conscious customers who want more than just the government's claim of safety equivalence.

Section III: The Awareness Gap: Income, UPFs, and Organic Food

Socioeconomic Status and the Junk Food Default

Socioeconomic status (SES) has a big effect on the significant disparity in eating habits, where some groups eat mostly ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and others look for organic, whole foods. This division is not merely a matter of preference; it predominantly mirrors economic reality.

Research shows that less nutritious, energy-dense foods are often the most economical sources of calories, rendering them a financially sensible option for individuals with limited resources. People around the world are eating more unhealthy foods, and they are relying more on ultra-processed foods, which are made to be cheap, last a long time, and be simple to use. About 63% of the average American's diet consists of processed foods. This widespread dependence on these foods is a direct cause of the steady decline in national health metrics. The consumption pattern is closely linked to SES, showing that for those with lower socioeconomic status, relying on UPFs is often an economic necessity rather than just a food choice. This trend keeps health disparities going.

The Organic Difference: Beyond the Surface

Factually, choosing organic often means reducing dietary exposure to these synthetic chemicals. Furthermore, organic farming practices typically prioritize soil health and biodiversity.

Decoding the "Organic" Label: Domestic vs. Imported Standards

The term "organic" means that the food was made using approved methods and checked by a USDA-accredited certifying agent. To get this designation, you have to follow strict rules, such as making sure that no banned substances have been used on the land for a set amount of time. Even though food grown in a home garden may be thought of as organic, only certified products that meet these standards can have the legal "USDA Organic" seal. This means that at least 95 percent of the content must be certified organic.

When looking at standards around the world, the U.S. USDA Organic label is more flexible than, say, European Union standards. The USDA standards don't allow synthetic inputs in general, but they do allow some synthetic chemicals if they are deemed necessary and there are no other options. Some examples are certain pest control treatments and disinfectants used in buildings for livestock. The European approach, on the other hand, puts a lot of emphasis on strict limits on synthetic inputs. This is because they believe in keeping the environment in balance and preventing disease.

To address the concern about international imports, the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) says that foreign organic products must meet the standards of a certification program that is considered to be the same as the U.S. program in order to be sold in the U.S. This equivalence demands similar technical specifications and evaluation frameworks, guaranteeing a fundamental standard of quality assurance for consumers, notwithstanding variations in production practices among countries.

The next table shows the main differences in regulations that affect what consumers expect from food standards:

TABLE TITLE: REGULATORY COMPARISON: US USDA ORGANIC VS. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Aspect of Regulation

USDA (U.S.)

International (e.g., EU)

Implication for Consumers

• Premarket Additive Review (Non-Organic)

  GRAS: Industry Self-Certification (Voluntary notification)

  Mandatory Government Review (More stringent pre-market checks)

  Higher potential for additives banned elsewhere to be present in U.S. foods.
• Synthetic Chemicals Allowed in Organic Production

  Tolerates certain synthetic inputs if deemed necessary (e.g., livestock disinfectants)

  Generally stricter limits on synthetic inputs; philosophy focused on prevention

  USDA label may not meet consumer expectations of zero synthetic input.
• Imported Organic Product Access

  Requires USDA National Organic Program (NOP) equivalence determination

  Varied bilateral agreements; standards must generally meet or exceed EU baseline requirements.

  Ensures baseline standard, but specific production practices may still differ from domestic farms.

Section IV: Consumer Tools and Toxic Load: Decoding Additives in Foods

Grading Your Food Should Be Second Nature

Healthy steps to chemical-free foods starts with an app that can assist you in learning about what you will be putting in your stomach.

Yuka and the Precautionary Principle in Food Scoring

The creation of consumer technology like the Yuka app is an important way to fight the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) lack of transparency because it provides people real-time, useful information. Yuka lets people scan the barcodes on food and obtain a full health score from 0 to 100, which is then color-coded (green for healthy, red for unhealthy). The scoring system looks at the nutritional value of a product and gives it a boost if it is certified organic.

The app's ability to analyze additives is one of its main features. Yuka uses reliable scientific studies and well-known toxicological reference tools, like the Klimisch rating system, to carefully evaluate additives. Additives are put into groups based on risk, with limited risk (-6 points), moderate risk (-15 points), and high risk (-30 points) being the most severe. This method makes it very hard for the product to get a high score.

Yuka is important because it follows the precautionary principle. It warns people about possible health risks based on scientific suspicion, even if the additive meets current government standards and is officially considered safe by U.S. health authorities. This feature gives consumers more power by giving them a risk assessment based on a broader understanding of scientific precaution. This effectively closes the gap between the bare minimum of regulatory compliance and higher consumer safety expectations.

Case Study: Nitrates, Nitrites, and Processed Meats (SPAM

SPAM is a worthy example of a meat product that has been processed too much. It uses sodium nitrite, a common preservative, to keep the meat fresh, prevent bacteria from growing, and give it its pink color, just like many other cured meats like bacon, hot dogs, and jerky.

The health risk of nitrites comes from the fact that they can turn into nitrosamines, which are known to cause cancer. The high heat of cooking meat (like frying) and the acidic environment of the stomach speed up this chemical reaction. Repeated studies have shown that eating these ultra-processed meats raises the risk of getting stomach and colorectal cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) has labeled processed meats as carcinogens because of these worries. This is mostly because they contain nitrates and nitrites. Major cancer research centers say you should stay away from these products and use unprocessed ones instead.

Case Study: Colorants and Suspended Nanoparticles (Snickers, Candy, Baked Goods)

Candy bars and other sweets often have extra ingredients that are only there to make them look better. Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) is a white pigment made in a lab that is added to candy, chewing gum, and baked goods to make them look whiter and less see-through. It doesn't do anything for nutrition or preservation. The FDA requires a review of color additives before they can be sold, and they allow TiO₂ to be used in amounts up to 1% by weight.

However, public health groups tell people not to use it. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) found proof that food-grade TiO₂ can build up in the body as tiny particles called nanoparticles. It is thought that the buildup of these nanoparticles may harm DNA, which is a major cause of cancer, and it may also harm the immune and nervous systems. The market adds this chemical to food to make it look better, even though it's not needed for safety or nutrition.

Section V: Ultra-Processed Foods and the Rise of Colorectal Cancer

Why Are Cancers on the Rise?

There has been a rise in early-onset cancers (in people under 50) at the same time that people have been eating a lot of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are full of different additives. Studies haven't shown that a single additive directly causes cancer, but these foods contain potential carcinogens like nitrites and change the gut microbiome, which can cause inflammation and DNA damage that can raise cancer risk over time. Because of this, many health groups suggest that these highly processed foods be limited.

The Epidemiological Shift in Colorectal Cancer

A significant and concerning trend in contemporary epidemiology is a significant increase in the rate of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) among adults under 50 years of age, referred to as early-onset CRC. This change goes against what we thought we knew, and it suggests that modern environmental and lifestyle factors, especially diet, are speeding up the growth of cancer in younger people.

The industrial food system's cheap, easy, and chemically complex diet is one of the main things that people think is causing the problem. This situation shows that when regulations are too lenient and economic pressures encourage UPF consumption (Sections I and III), it has a serious and delayed effect on public health.

Direct Research Linking UPFs and CRC Risk

Robust prospective studies conducted across large U.S. cohorts have now provided strong scientific evidence demonstrating a positive association between high total consumption of ultra-processed foods and an increased risk of colorectal cancer.  

Specific links were identified within UPF subgroups:

• Men: Higher CRC risk was specifically associated with increased consumption of meat/poultry/seafood-based ready-to-eat products (confirming the toxicological concerns regarding nitrites in cured meats) and sugar-sweetened beverages.  

• Women: Increased risk was linked to higher consumption of ready-to-eat/heat mixed dishes.  

These findings strongly support the conclusion that limiting certain types of UPFs is a necessary measure for improving population health outcomes.  

Biological Hypotheses: Inflammation and Microbiome Disruption

It is thought that several biological factors link UPFs (ultra-processed foods) to colorectal carcinogenesis:

Direct Toxic Exposure: Specific additives and preservatives, such as nitrates and nitrites in processed meats, function as proximal carcinogens.  

1. Nutritional Deficit: UPFs are high in energy but low in protective nutrients, especially fiber, which is found in whole foods like vegetables and legumes. Fiber in the diet is essential for gut health and preventing CRC.

2. Chronic Systemic Dysfunction: The elevated levels of added sugars, refined carbohydrates, and pro-inflammatory fats in UPFs induce persistent systemic inflammation and disrupt the intricate equilibrium of the gut microbiome. Microbiome disruption and chronic inflammation are essential processes significantly associated with the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer (CRC). The rising number of young people with CRC is a serious warning about the long-term health problems that can come from a food supply that is industrialized and allows chemicals.

The Simplest Start: An Apple a Day

Apples are the perfect symbol and tool for beginning a healthy diet because they embody the core principle of choosing whole foods over processed ones. Naturally high in fiber and rich in beneficial compounds, an apple provides sustained energy and aids in digestion. By consciously reaching for this single, unprocessed item, you establish a simple, powerful habit that helps crowd out cravings for additive-filled snacks and sets you firmly on the right path toward better nutrition.

Section VI: Healing Through Diet and Modern Therapy

Foods that Support Natural Biotransformation

The liver's biotransformation enzyme pathways (Phase I and Phase II) are the main ways the body gets rid of harmful substances, whether they come from food additives, bioengineered ingredients, or pollutants in the environment. Dietary selections can significantly influence and augment these innate processes.

Researchers have looked into certain food compounds to see if they can help the liver's enzymes work better:

Cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli and kale, have strong compounds (like sulforaphane) that are known to boost Phase II enzymes, which help the body get rid of toxins.

Flavonoids: Clinical studies have shown that quercetin, which is found in large amounts in apples, yellow onions, kale, and blueberries, can change the way enzymes like CYP3A work.

Apiaceous Vegetables: Researchers have looked into the effects of compounds in celery, parsley, carrots, and dill on enzyme function in clinical settings.

Turmeric has bioactive curcumin, which is a strong anti-inflammatory compound that has been studied for its possible role in enzyme modulation.

Combining these foods is a long-term plan that is easy to follow and backed by science to help the body better deal with the toxins that come from modern diets and the environment.

Conclusion

All the above information is researched, but be mindful of what is best for you and slowly progress to a more mindful, tactful diet structure that is either provided to you through a licensed dietitian or a carefully researched diet through friends and family. Eating quality foods is your aim, and I would advocate that you consider a food app that can assist you in deciding what items are practical for your overall diet goals. After all, the taste of food might have been altered to appease your taste buds into thinking it’s good-tasting, but the body might say something entirely different. If you found this article helpful, please leave a comment. It helps us.