In recent years, the safety of our food supply has become an increasingly complex and pressing concern. As new ingredients and additives enter our food system at an alarming rate, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question: Is our food safe? Two recent developments bring this question into sharp focus—one highlighting the pitfalls of a lax regulatory environment and the other showcasing a bold approach to ensuring food safety for children. Together, these stories underline the need for better oversight and more rigorous safety standards for what ends up on our plates.
The first case centers on a new ingredient that was recently introduced to the U.S. food supply without proper evaluation—tara flour. According to an article by Pieter A. Cohen, M.D., and Emily M. Broad Leib, J.D., published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not initially evaluate tara flour before it entered the market. Instead, the flour was deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the manufacturer, allowing it to bypass any formal FDA vetting. However, after nearly 400 consumers reported serious side effects, including abdominal pain, nausea, and liver damage, the FDA launched an investigation. It wasn’t until almost two years later that the agency concluded tara flour was not, in fact, GRAS, and therefore should not be used as a food additive.
This incident reveals significant flaws in the current system for regulating food safety in the United States. Under the 1958 Food Additives Amendment, companies can bypass FDA approval if they determine a new substance to be GRAS. Originally intended for well-known ingredients like vinegar or baking powder, the GRAS designation is now widely used for novel substances that have not undergone thorough testing. As a result, potentially harmful ingredients are introduced into our food, sometimes without the FDA—or the public—knowing about it. Manufacturers are not required to share safety data, and many substances are greenlighted without rigorous scrutiny.
The situation with tara flour illustrates the potential dangers of this regulatory gap. When companies take shortcuts, public health can be put at risk. And identifying these risks after the fact is an uphill battle—especially for ingredients that may contribute to long-term health issues, like an increased risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease. In fact, the story of trans fats provides another cautionary tale. Once considered safe and widely used, it took decades of research and public health advocacy to recognize the true risks associated with trans fats and remove them from our food.
Moreover, the long-term effects of many of these new additives and chemicals remain largely unknown, particularly when it comes to mental and metabolic health. Given the skyrocketing rates of mental and metabolic disorders, such as depression, anxiety, obesity, and diabetes, we need to dedicate more resources to understanding how these ingredients may affect human metabolism, mitochondria, and the brain. Mitochondrial dysfunction and metabolic dysregulation are increasingly linked to both physical and mental health conditions. Without rigorous study, we are essentially conducting a large-scale experiment on the population, risking potential harm to our collective well-being.
While federal oversight has been lacking, some states are taking matters into their own hands. California, for example, recently enacted legislation to ban specific synthetic food dyes from public schools. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, will go into effect at the end of 2027 and will prohibit the use of common food dyes such as blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5, and yellow 6 in public, charter, and special state schools. These dyes are used to make foods appear more vibrant, but they have also been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, including hyperactivity and attention problems.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the legislation aims to protect children from the negative effects of these artificial dyes, which are often found in popular snack foods like Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms, and certain sugary cereals. The ban is a direct response to growing evidence that these additives can harm children’s health and hinder their ability to learn. For Jesse Gabriel, the bill’s author, the issue is personal—he and his son both have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that may be exacerbated by the very chemicals now being banned.
California’s move sends a powerful message to food manufacturers: if they want to sell their products in the nation’s most populous state, they must reformulate them without harmful additives. The hope is that such a ban will not only improve food quality in California but also encourage nationwide change. After all, similar food dyes have already been banned in the European Union and Canada due to health concerns.
These two stories paint a concerning picture of the state of food safety in the United States. On one hand, we have a federal regulatory system that allows companies to self-determine the safety of new food ingredients with little to no oversight, leading to incidents like the tara flour scandal. On the other, individual states are stepping up to fill the regulatory void, taking meaningful action to protect vulnerable populations, such as children, from harmful substances in their food.
To ensure our food is truly safe, it is clear that more needs to be done. The FDA should require manufacturers to provide rigorous safety data for new ingredients and should systematically reassess substances previously deemed GRAS. Proactive measures like those taken by California show a path forward—one that prioritizes public health over convenience and corporate profit.
Ultimately, the safety of our food is not just a regulatory issue; it’s a matter of public trust. When people buy food for their families, they should be able to trust that it won’t make them sick or negatively impact their long-term mental and metabolic health. Strengthening our food safety standards is essential—not just for preventing another tara flour incident, but for creating a food system that truly supports our health and well-being.
Dr. Christopher M. Palmer is a Harvard psychiatrist and researcher working at the interface of metabolism and mental health. He is the Founder and Director of the Metabolic and Mental Health Program and the Director of the Department of Postgraduate and Continuing Education at McLean Hospital and an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. For almost 30 years, he has held administrative, educational, research, and clinical roles in psychiatry at McLean and Harvard. He has been pioneering the use of the medical ketogenic diet in the treatment of psychiatric disorders—conducting research in this area, treating patients, writing, and speaking around the world on this topic. Most recently, he has proposed that mental disorders can be understood as metabolic disorders affecting the brain, which has received widespread recognition in both national and international media outlets.
