Healthier America: Legislative Proposals on the Regulation and Oversight of Food

Subcommittee will come to order. The chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. Today we will be discussing bills that seek to improve the regulation and oversight of our nation's food. First off, I wanna commend the administration's efforts to bring transparency to our food system especially in the wake of the chronic disease epidemic facing our country. Chronic diseases have become one of the primary drivers of health care spending in the nation, and the administration's efforts to reflect a renewed commitment to long-term health, laying the groundwork for a healthier future, where fewer Americans face preventable diseases. This administration has taken many steps to help combat the chronic disease epidemic in our country, including reforming dietary guidelines, launching Operation Operation Stork Speed, phasing out certain food additives, and much more. For too long, the status quo has remained. That is why the h- this hearing is an important first step for us to examine what regulatory standards and policies need to be re-evaluated. I also want to highlight the impact our food has on our children and the rise of childhood chronic diseases. Many of the chronic conditions children face today, such as obesity and diabetes, can be related back to some highly processed foods. Prioritizing safer, higher quality ingredients not only protects children at the onset, but also helps establish healthier dietary patterns, lowering the likelihood of chronic disease. An important part of today's hearing will highlight various bills that reform the generally recognized as safe or grasp process. In nineteen fifty eight, Congress created this framework so certain food additives that were deemed safe by the FDA would not need to go through the same lengthy review. as a new food additive. In short, Grass was meant to avoid unnecessary red tape for ingredients that are already widely known as safe, but it was intended for common ingredients such as salt and baking soda. Over time, the list has become extensive. And to no fault of the companies or regulators, many complex chemicals are now considered generally recognized as safe, using the pa- using that pathway to avoid going through formal FTA approval. Several of the bills before us today look at ways we can update the grasp program to combat some of the challenges in the current regulations. Furthermore, it is important that we empower Americans to take their health into their own hands, by looking for ways to improve the labeling of our food products. I have many allergies and so does one of my sons. Because of this, I've spent a lot of time reading food labels and have done so for my whole life. I have also have alpha-gal which causes me to have a reaction to red meat and other mammalian derived products. One of the bills we will consider today is led by representative Van Drew of New Jersey and representative Don Davis of North Carolina, HR one HR one one thousand one hundred and seventy eight, the alpha-gal allergen inclusion act of which I am a cosponsor would classify alpha-gal as a major food allergen and requires identification on packaged food labels. Other bills we will discuss attempt to bring more clarity and safety for certain foods, such as poppy seeds, dairy products, orange juice, honey, food dyes, and others. These bill in fro- these bills in front of us will also help cut red tape to ensure in- the industry has the necessary information to correct any safety issues that come up during inspections. Moreover, food safety and a stable food supply, which includes not putting unreasonable burdens on food distributors are central to keeping groceries affordable. Whether from contamination recall, inconsistent regulation, or bottlenecks in production or distribution, disruptions drive up costs that are ultimately passed on to shoppers. American consumers need to be at the forefront of our discussion today, as we look for ways to not only safeguard our food supply, but also ensure transparency, reduce unnecessary costs, and work to increase affordability. Reliable food for all households is a must. I am looking forward to continuing to work with this administration in advancing these goals and bills. I appreciate our witnesses being here and look forward to the discussion. That concludes my opening statement. I will now yield back and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee Ms. DiGette for her five minute opening statement.

Thank you so much, uh, Mister Chairman, and welcome to the party because for many years, my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle have been working to strengthen the lab labeling requirements, close the so-called grass loophole that allows companies to allow substances to food without FDA approval, and get toxic chemicals out of the domestic food supply. In fact, um, a couple of weeks ago, when Secretary Kennedy was scheduled to come, and and testify before our committee um his staff asked me is there nothing we can work together on and i said i do think there's something we can work on and it's food safety and health um uh you won't hear me say it very often but secretary kennedy was right when he said the government quote does not know how many ingredients there are in american food and we need to do something about that and we've needed to do something about that for quite some number of years now Americans deserve peace of mind when they're shopping at the grocery store, when they're preparing their kids' lunches, or when they're purchasing formula for their newborn infant, that the food that they and their family eat is safe of to- safe from toxic contaminants. They deserve to have the ease of reading food labels free of misleading terms to find out whether a product is right for them and Mr. Chairman you know that better than anybody. But right now, the onus for deciphering which foods are healthy and avoiding harmful substances falls overwhelmingly on the consumer. Now, this should be why we have an FDA, so that Americans across the country have the information that they need to make healthy choices. And I I had many conversations with former Commissioner Rob Califf. It's the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. Food, just food is first. just like Congress's article one, by the way. And so, before we can begin to solve the problem, we have to understand the problem. We must first and foremost ensure FDA fully understands what's exactly in our food and which substances are harmful. This means unleashing all of our possible resources for research to investigate the most complex challenges that we face in our food system. How have ultra-processed foods impacted our nation's health? What is the relationship between nutrition and certain health products, including GLP-one drugs for weight loss? And which harmful substances currently in the domestic food supply are we missing in regulation of food additives? I believe I can speak for the Democrats here today when I say we're ready to work with anybody on these food priorities and more. But traditionally, Republican policies and inactions have made it harder for families to afford food, hard for science to prevail over industry interests, and harder to for FDA to do its job. And and so, Mr. Chairman, I would say you all need to move on from this if we really are going to per pursue durable solutions to tough nutrition problems rather than making gestures and applying band-aids I call them ironically fig leaf bills. Let's not do fig leaf food safety bills. Let's do actual legislation that helps regulate this situation. Now, this hearing is being held today in the shadow of the Republicans' big bad bill, which made the largest cut to nutrition assistance in our nation's history. Right now, in this country, three million people have lost their SNAP benefits since passage of this bill, and they can't even afford food or infant formula in the first place. Because yes, Healthy food is better than unhealthy food, but I'm sorry to say any food is better than no food at all. Republicans also have to face the damage that their ally Elon Musk and his team of doge children did to the FDA's workforce. An agency down fourteen percent in staffing since twenty twenty four simply can't do the investigative scientific work necessarily necessary to hold mega corporations to account and prevent food-borne illnesses before they happen. My friends, we cannot possibly improve nutrition and food safety while undermining trust in science and the field of public health. The workforce and surveillance systems should keep us protected right now. And finally, the secretary should stop touting food reform as it hasn't actually made. On March twenty-third, the secretary went on a pod podcast and claimed, quote, "We've changed the grass loophole, so we've closed it. So the new ingredients have to show safety standards. That's not true. The secretary didn't close the loophole. And if he wanted to, he could work with Congress to make that happen. So I'm happy that we're considering twenty-eight bills today, and I'm happy that we all agree we need to make progress on food safety. Let's actually do it this time. I yield back.

And the lady yields back, now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky.

Thank you, Chairman Griffith.

Go ahead, Beth.

To all of you, for thanks to all our witnesses for being here today. Today we're considering a a number of bills addressing FTA's oversight of our nation's food supply. An important discussion is we consider ways to strengthen consumer confidence in foods Americans eat. The Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again strategy includes several initiatives to ensure our food supply is safe and and nutritious. State and private sector partners have also taken additional steps to respond to consumer demand for greater transparency and accountability. Today's hearing provides an opportunity to examine how FTA's existing authorities are working and where Congress may need to provide clarity or improvement. It is important for Americans to know what's in their food, whether that's nutritional value or what additives and allergens may be included. In addition to consumer transparency policies, we're also examining bills to improve coordination between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to food safety. Some bills will prioritize timely information sharing during food safety incidents, like outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. Others address producer concerns regarding standards of identity and fair labeling practices. This committee has a history of strong oversight, an infant formula, to ensure supply is adequate, safe and readily available for families and children. Several bills before us today address product safety, testing and marketing of baby formula. with the goal of ensuring families have access to safe nutrition for their children. We're excited about opportunities to strengthen the quality and security of the infant formula supply chain, with the best interests of American families in mind, as the Trump administration is doing with Project Stork Speed. However, we must be conscious, cautious in how we approach this, as I fear some of the legislation before us today would benefit benefit trial lawyers more than children, and we should be striving to protect. In fact, many of the bills that we'll discuss today need more work before they'll be ready to move forward, but I'm I appreciate the opportunity we have this Congress to come to the table and work together on these issues that are important to all Americans. I thank the witnesses for their participation and look forward to today's discussion, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey.

Thank you, Chairman Griffith. I'm pleased we're here today to discuss important legislation to ensure that the food americans have access to is healthy and safe this has been a priority of mine for decades we passed the food safety modernization act or FISMA in two thousand ten when i was the chair of the subcommittee and it was the largest reform of our nation's food system in decades FISMA moved the fda to a strategy of stopping unsafe food from reaching our families and closing harm by providing the agency with the authority to set scientific guardrails over the food supply chain And I was encouraged by the work coming out of the agency several years ago, during the Biden administration. The FTA successfully implemented the human foods program to better focus on the food safety and prevention goals of FISMA, elevate the importance of nutrition and prevent diet-related diseases, and provide stronger oversight of the food supply in partnership with States. I was also pleased when the FTA finally banned red dye number three in products that the agency regulates including the food that we feed our kids. That chemical shown to have lifelong health consequences for children, it should never have been in our food supply, and I for- for it to be banned for years. Unfortunately, these successes are now clouded by the destruction and the chaos that the Trump administration has caused for our food supply. Within their first few weeks in office, the Trump administration indiscriminately fired experts at the FDA, including eighty-nine people in the human food program with specific expertise in nutrition and formula and food and chemical safety. The deputy commissioner of that program, Jim Jones, resigned just a few days after noting that the terminations were indiscriminate, short-sighted, and made the Trump administration's or showed the Trump administration's disdain for the very people necessary to implement their their agenda, or at least, you know, he didn't want them there because they weren't implementing his agenda, is what I should say. And these cuts showed the Trump administration has no interest in protecting our families from harmful chemicals, and showed complete disregard for the fragile infant formula market that parents rely on. You know the problems that we had with that. More recently, Trump signed an executive order to promote domestic production of Glayfosat, I'm think I'm pronouncing it right, and even filed a brief with the Supreme Court, arguing to shield Monsanto from lawsuits. Public health groups note this as a " total surrender to the chemical industry". And Trump ran on a promise of getting dangerous chemicals out of our family's food, but he's done exactly the opposite. So while the Trump administration is undermining food safety, it's important that Congress explore real solutions. And I'm glad, Mister Chairman, that this committee is focused on this issue today with numerous bills led by my democratic colleagues. We have continuously heard that FDA is not resourced to do the work that's needed on chemical safety. So my bill, H R four nine five eight, the Grocery Reform and Safety Act, aims to address that, along with the much needed oversight of the chemicals that are put into our food. My bill, along with Representative Schakowsky's H R four three O six, the Food Chemical Reassessment Act, directly addresses the critical need to protect the food supply by requiring FDA to review chemicals in our food through a transparent scientific process. Other bills will provide transparency for consumers to make informed decisions about the food they're eating and their health. These are on the agenda today, as you know, Mr. Chairman. Democrats have also proposed three bills to ensure the formula in foods These bills would protect our children from eating harmful chemicals in their food. And although I am pleased that the Republic majority is holding this important legislative hearing today, I'm concerned that some of the Republican proposals actually undermine FDA's efforts to improve public health. A MAHA leader noted that these proposals are, and I quote, "a wish list for the chemical industry, weakening the already limited role of the FDA, expanding industry self-policing, and preempting state laws that have been leading the way on food safety. And I agree, this is not the right path and I hope we can have a productive discussion today on a better path forward. So let me just kind of summarize, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I'm not pleased with uh the president and what the administration is doing when it comes to food safety. I think it's they're backtracking. But I do think this hearing is important. We have a we have some bills that I don't like, but a lot that I do. And so thank you again for having me here and I yield back.

Thank you, gentlemen. Gentleman yields back. We now conpl conclude with member opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. We want to thank our witnesses for taking their time to testify before our subcommittee today. Although it is not the practice of this subcommittee to swear in witnesses, I would remind our witnesses that knowingly and willingly making materially false statements to the legislative branch is against Under title eighteen, section one zero zero one of the United States Code, you will each have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by questions from the members. Our witnesses today are uh Steven Mundurnuk, uh Executive Director, Association of Food and Drug Officials, Joseph Kalali Kalalililililililililililililililil, uh President Shopwright of a Hundred and County, Inc., Chad Hamilton, Board Member, Cheese Board, International Dairy Foods Association, and Scott Faber, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Environmental Working Group. Uh, per committee custom, each witness will have the opportunity for a five minute opening statement followed by a round of questions from members. The light on the timer in front of you will turn from green to yellow when you have one minute left. I will now recognize Mr. Modernok for five minutes to give his opening statement.

Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member DeGette, Chairman Guthrie, and Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Steven Mondernok and I am the Executive Director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, or AFTO. AFTO has served for a hundred and thirty years as a convener of state, local, federal, tribal, and territorial regulators who run America's integrated food safety system. Before joining AFTO, I spent more than fifteen years in Iowa state government, a portion overseeing the state's food safety regulatory system. I wanna start with one fact that often gets lost in conversations about food safety here in Washington. The real work often happens in the states. State and local inspectors conduct one hundred percent of the retail food inspections, every restaurant, every grocery store, every convenience store. States conduct nearly ninety percent of all food processing inspections nationwide and more than half of the domestic manufactured food inspections. that FDA reports to Congress each year are actually conducted by state inspectors. Over ninety-three percent of produce safety inspections, all grade A milk inspections, and shelf-first work are completed by states. FDA itself recognizes this reality. Through the bridge project, the agency is moving toward a model where most routine domestic inspections are completed by state programmings, freeing FDA to focus on highly technical and foreign inspections. AFTO supports that direction. But it will mean that whatever this subcommittee does on food legislation will land operationally on state and local agencies. This brings me to the first ask. Please fix the federal state information sharing. FDA's counsel under multiple administrations has determined a statutory change to the federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act is needed to allow secure real-time information sharing with state and local partners. Without that fixed, the systems break down at exactly the wrong moments. Let me give you a real example. The Beihart infant formula recall last year involved forty-eight confirmed and probable cases of infant botulism across seventeen states. In the first week of that recall, state employees conducted nearly two thousand recall effectiveness checks at retail. They found recalled infant formulas still on the shelves in seven percent of the stores they visited. But here's the problem. While two thousand seems like a huge number, that was only a portion of the retail establishments of concern. In those early critical days, some states and most local agencies were unable to get the distribution lists from FDA without special information sharing agreements that often take months to effectuate. In many cases, jurisdictions were forced to wait functionally five days for FDA to move through a process that allowed for local agencies and those states without agreement, to receive the information. That is inefficient and ineffective and unnecessary c- bureaucratic delay, and consumers, and in this case infants, are the ones who paid the price for the delay. That is exactly why AFTO strongly supports HR eight four three zero, the federal and state food safety information sharing act, introduced by Representative Rooley, who serves on this subcommittee, and Representative Ross. It is targeted, it is a targeted fix that gives FDA the authority to share critical food safety information with state and local partners quickly and with the highest regard for confidential data. H R eight four three zero has broad-based support from industry, consumer groups and government partners, and has been included in the policy portion of the current budget request and several budget requests from both parties. It does not create new mandates or spending, it simply lets the integrated food safety system function the way Congress intended. We urge the subcommittee to advance this important legislation as soon as possible. My second ask is about preemption of the for the food regulatory issues. As a proud representative of the laboratories of democracy, I see both sides of this issue. On one hand, where there is broad national consensus, the scope is clearly defined, and most importantly, where the federal government backs the policy with the resources to enforce the standards it sets, preemption works well. When those conditions are not met, broad preemption can slow the system down, delaying the incorporation of new science, reducing responsiveness to emerging risks, and leaving gaps that the states would otherwise fill. States are the closest to the regulat- regulated community and can be the first to identify emerging issues. A balanced, narrowly tailored approach to preemption preserves national consistency where genu- where it genuinely helps, without impairing the state capacity that FD itself is increasingly relying on. To sum up, states are doing the lion's share of work in food safety. Passing H R eight four three zero to fix information sharing and applying preemption with care will make the whole integrated food safety system stronger. Afterward, our members stand ready to serve as a resource to the subcommittee, and thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman yields back, now I'll recognize Mister Cololillo, I get it right that time? Cololillo, got it right that time.

Yeah.

Okay, for his five minute opening statement.

Chairman Griffiths, Ranking Member DeGette, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Joe Cololillo, President of Shoppert of Hunterdon County. I have spent my entire career in our family business in the food industry, taking over from my father after he passed away in nineteen ninety three. I've been on the board of directors of Wakeford Food Corporation since nineteen eighty nine and served as chair from two thousand five to two thousand twenty three. Advancing food safety is my passion. I have led food safety and quality assurance committees within Wakeburn and as a board member of FMI the Food Industry Association. One principle has guided our work every day. Food safety is not a competitive advantage. It is a shared responsibility across the entire industry. As a grocer, I am proud that our nation's food system is the safest and the most efficient in the world. Today my message to you is straightforward. We need one clear, national standard for food labeling, disclosure and safety, and led by the FDA. A patchwork of state-by-state requirements is not workable in a modern food system, and it is our customers who will lose. At Wakefern, our retailer-owned cooperative operates across nine states, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. The forty-three family owners of Wakefern have the good fortune of being represented by ten members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Frank Pallone, Tom Kane, Paul Tonko, Yvette Clark, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jake Auchincloss, Robyn Nendes, John Joyce, Nick Langworthy, and Lori Trehan. Our co-op was established in nineteen forty six with an important mission to put people first and help independent family owned grocers compete and succeed in a competitive retail environment. Today we manage a single efficient inventory system that allows us to keep food affordable and accessible. Under a fragmented regulatory approach, we could be forced to manage tens of thousands of state-specific product variations. This is just not inefficient, it is operationally unworkable. It would drive up costs, reduce product availability, and ultimately make it harder for families to afford groceries. Policies that support consistency, clarity, and science-based decision making and do not drive up prices are essential to maintaining both consumer confidence and affordability. Further, a patchwork of state laws and labels is detrimental to consumer understanding and will create confusion for those who shop across state lines. And the impact doesn't stop at retail. A patchwork system disrupts the entire supply chain from manufacturing to storage to distributions. Manufacturers would need to produce multiple versions of the same product Increasing complexity and cost. Warehouses would need to segregate inventory by state, raising the risk of errors, spoilage and waste, especially perishable foods. Additional physical space and labor would be needed to organize the massive increase in products. Take a scenario where we must stock and distribute nine different variations of the same item to accommodate contradicting state laws. We currently have four million square feet of warehouse space, fifty one thousand grocery and frozen items slotted in those warehouses assuming that only fifty percent of those items were impacted by packaging and formulation changes we would need eight and a half million more square feet of warehouse space over a hundred percent increase to bring the same product offerings that we do today to market this would cost an additional one point five billion dollars to construct that space distribution networks designed for speed and efficiency would slow down Products would require additional handling and compliance checks, increasing the risk of misrouting and recalls. Our food system is built to move products quickly across state lines, especially during emergencies. When disasters strike, we shift inventory to where it's needed most. A fragmented regulatory system could delay or even prevent that response. A single national science-based framework ensures that food moves safely, efficiently, and affordably, every day, especially when it matters most. In closing, grocers are on the front lines every day, keeping food safe, affordable, and accessible. That responsibility depends on a strong federal framework, an efficient national supply chain, and clear and consistent rules. We urge you to support legislation like the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act that allows and requires FDA to develop and implement a single national standard that protects consumers, strengthens the food system, and preserves affordability. As I said in my opening statement, within our industry, one principle guides our work every day. Food safety is not a competitive advantage. It is a shared responsibility across the entire industry. In that same spirit, we hope the federal government and members of Congress of both across both parties can collaborate to ensure food safety and affordability for all Americans. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Jim Munoz back, now recognize Mister Hamilton for his five minute opening statement.

Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Griffith and ranking member DeGette, Committee Chair Guthrie, and ranking member Pilon. I appreciate the invitation to testify at today's hearing. I'm in support of H. R. thirteen ninety-four, the codifying useful regulatory definitions or act or curt act. My name is Chad Hamilton, and I am testifying on behalf of the International Dairy Foods Association, or IDF, and its cheese industry segment board. I serve on the cheese industry segment board for Sargento Cheese, where I serve as General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Legal and Government Affairs. I also previously served on the IDFA committee that developed the Curt Act in twenty fifteen. IDFA represents the nation's dairy manufacturing and marketing industry, which supports more than three million jobs that generate fifty-two billion in direct wages and seven hundred and seventy-nine billion in overall economic impact. IDFA's diverse membership includes multinational organizations, single plant companies, and dairy cooperatives, and food retailers and suppliers. Together they represent most of the milk, cheese, ice cream, yogurt, and dairy ingredients produced and marketed in the United States and sold throughout the world. US cheese makers have long used the term " natural cheese" to differentiate cheeses made using a simple process that has been trusted by traditional cheese makers for centuries, versus processed cheeses that are made by blending, heating, and emulsifying the original natural cheese. In everyday practice, consumers generally understand that a natural cheese, cheddar or havarti for example, is appropriate for a charcuterie board, while processed cheese is more commonly used for foods like grilled cheese sandwiches or shelf-stable macaroni and cheese. Let me make it easy. Natural cheese is minimally processed and made with the four simple ingredients it has always been made with milk cultures enzymes and salt. Despite this common mis- unders- despite this common understanding, the distinction is not ref- clearly reflected in statute. While processed cheese is defined in regulation, natural cheese is not. The lack of symmetry creates confusion and inconsistency in federal policy and in the marketplace. The absence of a statutory definition is notable, given how consistently the term " natural cheese" is used across the federal government. The USDA, the EPA, Congress, and the courts have repeatedly used " natural cheese" to refer to a distinct category of cheeses. USDA uses the term consistently, including in its Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition programs which recommends serving natural cheese. EPA regulates facilities that produce natural cheese for environmental compliance and the EPA considers a category of natural cheeses in their regulatory processes. Taken together, these examples demonstrate a consistent pattern. Federal agencies rely on the concept of natural cheese in program administration data reporting, and regulatory frameworks, but without a single authoritative definition and statute. The need for clarity is particularly timely, given the recently updated dietary guidelines for Americans, which emphasize nutrient-dense and minimally processed foods, including full-fat dairy products. These guidelines inform federal nutrition programs and are widely relied upon by schools health care providers and consumers. Without a clear definition of natural cheese, stakeholders may face uncertainty when applying these recommendations in The Curt Act defines natural cheese by specifying traditional processing methods, recognizing existing standards of identity, and accepting those processed cheeses already defined by regulation. Consistent with long-standing governmental and industry usage, the Curt Act permits the use of the term " natural cheese" if one of two conditions are satisfied. First, the cheese identified the cheese is identified by an existing FDA standard of identity, for example, cheddar, Swiss, or mozzarella. Or second, if the cheese is not defined by FDA regulation, for example, FETA, it nonetheless conforms to generally the Codex standard for cheese, which is an internationally recognized industry benchmark. The Curt Act has the support of IDFA and all IDFA cheese company members. It is also supported by the National Milk Producers Federation, the Dairy Institute of California, the Northeast Dairy Foods Association, the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association, and the Wisconsin Dairy Products Association. In conclusion, the Curt Act is a straightforward bipartisan solution to a long-standing gap in federal food law. By codifying a commonly accepted and widely used category of cheese, it will provide greater clarity and consistency for consumers, policymakers, and industry. It aligns with federal policy, with decades of usage across agencies, supports transparency in the marketplace, and reinforces a shared understanding already relied upon in federal programs and regulations. So on behalf of the Cheese Industry Segment Board of the International Dairy Foods Association, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing, and I welcome the subcommittee's questions on the Curt Act.

Thank you very much, Mister Farber. Now your turn.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chairman, ranking member, to get. I'm I'm grateful to be here and to testify. I'm Scott Faber. I'm testifying today on behalf of EWG. I'm also an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I teach food and farm law. And prior to joining EWG, I was the Vice President for Federal Affairs for the Consumer Brands Association. or what used to be known as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, I think we all agree that food, uh, that is safe, affordable, and healthy, and that is produced in ways that reflect our values, is not a partisan issue. All of us, regardless of party, want our food to be safe, affordable, and healthy. Uh, unfortunately many of our food and farm laws have not been updated in many decades, or are not being implemented in ways that reflect these shared values. And as a result, diet related disease is now our leading cause of death, surpassing surpassing smoking. As consumers struggle to distinguish between UPS and healthier processed foods, many Americans simply lack access to healthier foods and every year thousands of us are sickened by pathogens and hundreds die. Too many of us eat food that is contaminated with metals or contaminants like PFAS. Too many of us eat food that contains food additives that have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer. And in particular, nearly ninety-nine percent of new food chemicals have since two thousand been approved for safety by the food chemical companies, not by the FDA, and the FDA rarely reconsiders the safety of the thousands and thousands of chemicals we're already eating. Many of these new chemicals have been added to our food without FDA's knowledge. In response, our states have played an important complementary role. phasing out eleven chemicals out of four thousand of eleven of the most troubling chemicals from our food, especially from our school foods. Uh, and I know all of eleven of these have been removed from, uh, the Wake Fern's, uh, store brand, which I'm grateful for. Thank you for that. Uh, many of the bills are subject to today's hearing would help make our food safer and healthier by updating our food labels alerting consumers to hidden threats like alpha-gal, ending deceptive practices, reducing heavy metal contamination, especially in baby food, and by modernizing how we review food chemicals. And to ensure that the safety of our food, we should require that all new food chemicals be reviewed by the FDA, not by food chemical companies, and we should direct the FDA to reconsider the thousands of chemicals we're already eating, starting with the chemicals that are linked to cancer. These chemicals uh should not be in foods let alone considered generally recognized as safe we should also take steps to make sure our baby food is safe and recent food safety failures and investigations have underscored the need to increase testing for pathogens and immediately report results and to set tough standards for metals like lead in our in our baby food we should not make our food safety system worse by allowing chemical companies to completely bypass fda review altogether and as one bill uh that is the subject of today's hearing propose instead allow industry funded panels of industry insiders to simply approve new chemicals and immediately add them to our food we should not reduce the amount of information that we're sending to fda nor should we allow a new chemical to be presumed safe simply because the fda has missed a deadline um Most importantly, we should not block our states from providing important protections, especially when the FDA has failed to act. Our state and local governments, as you heard from Mister Mandanark, are incredibly important partners. They make sure our restaurants are safe. They inspect our food manufacturing facilities. They respond when pathogens threaten our health. Our states are the solution. They are not the problem. So, to help consumers identify healthier foods, just finish up by saying we must make our labels clearer, we must expand uh access to healthier options. Many of of the processed foods in the center of the store are part of a healthy diet because they're low in saturated fat and added sugars and sodium. We need to make it easier for consumers to find these healthier choices at a glance. Let me just finish by saying these reforms, reforms that require a company to ch- to substitute a toxic chemical, with a safer chemical or reforms that require companies to update their labels to help busy consumers will not increase the price of food. Energy costs, transportation costs, labor costs, marketing, those are the big factors that drive the price of food, not substituting one toxic chemical with a safer chemical or helping consumers simply find the healthier choice. I'm very grateful you're holding this hearing today, and I'd be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We will now begin uh with questioning. I would remind members, please do not begin a new question to a witness just as your five minutes is about to expire. Ha ha ha. Cuz then we go over. Uh and I would encourage members to recognize they have the right to submit written questions for the record and to use that opportunity instead of uh keeping our witnesses here until seven or eight o'clock tonight. Uh, I will now recognize myself for five minutes. Uh, some tough issues, and these bills are here so that we can get information. We appreciate you all being here because on the one hand, I wanna see a label that tells me as much stuff as I can get. On the other hand, if it's too if it's too much, the consumer won't read it or the average consumer won't read that labeling, so we have that balance. Mister Faber is right. We've gotta substitute good stuff for bad stuff, and sometimes maybe the states are ahead, but then we have issues that are related to uh making sure that we're doing this in a manner that we don't so make the expense of of warehousing or distribution so high, that we can't uh deal with it. Uh, so we have to move from there uh because the cost can be raised if you have to have more warehouses and you have to have more trucks delivering the items to the grocery stores, because you're going into different states. So we gotta figure out a balance there. And Mr. Hamilton, I will say right off the bat that I have already been lobbied today by Mr. Stile on the curd bill. Uh, he came to me and said this is very, very important. Now, mister um Cali-

Kalalilo.

It's a hard afternoon. Kalalilo. Um, my district in Southwest Virginia borders four states, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and the one that everybody learned about if they didn't know before, Bristol, Virginia, Tennessee, cuz the Geico gecko jumps back and forth in the middle of the main Commerce Street, right in downtown Bristol, Virginia, Tennessee. It's both states. Um. There are, there are lots of plants in my district and on the borders and distribution companies. small candy companies, food, I mean, you name it, who are distributing, when they send that distribution truck out, they're going to stores on the the road on the route that they have both in Virginia and West Virginia, both in Virginia and Tennessee, both in Virginia and North Carolina, and in some cases in a single route, they will hit uh, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia in a in a in a single day without any hesitation they can do that, because they're all right there together. So that creates the situation that we have, and I recognize the concern, but the patchwork of state regulations for labels, use, sale, et cetera impacts costs. And you talked earlier about that, but those costs uh impact your building stock inventories you talked about on the uh warehouses. Those costs get passed on to the consumer. and it's it's a problem so do you think having an agreed upon labeling standard would help with this and bring down the cost of of food or at least not make it go up any higher the cost for both food for the manufacturer to to produce and the consumer to buy

uh thank you chairman absolutely i mean one standard that everybody understands clearly the manufacturers the retailers it just makes us as efficient as we are today when you start talking about patchwork of laws it clearly complicates it we have a store in eastern pennsylvania and philipsburg new jersey those shoppers shop both ways when they get confused if one state in pennsylvania outlaws something the state of new jersey makes it legal how does that consumer know what is the best product so you have those costs that i clearly uh delineated however you have a huge cost of customer confusion of what is good what is bad you know we wanna give our customers the safest food supply whatever the government and in our case we suggest the fda determines that's what we should be following if we have to have in our we have four uh four thousand private label items if we would have to have nine different formulas for private label items either they're gonna go away because we can't afford that or they're gonna get more expensive for the consumer so we really feel that one set of regulations is best for us to keep costs down not to drive costs up

and and that's my general philosophy but i also recognize mister faber's uh point if thousands of new chemicals, the consumer needs to figure out some way and the FTA, I don't know if the FTA can do it all as fast as we need to. So we're going to figure out that balance because I will tell you there are certain food products that I don't know why I have a reaction uh to them. I I I there must be something in there that I don't know about.

Yeah.

But uh but I can tell the diff now none of them are fatal and I'm not gonna, you know, go into anaphylactic shock uh immediately almost of it, but you know, I found this particularly where I've been able to identify those within vitamins, because the coating on the vitamin might have something in it or the or the uh pain reliever. The coating on the the base ingredient might have something and I just have to do trial and error. So we've got to figure out how do we get that balance where we get it right, where we're dealing with the thousands of chemicals and for those of us who are food sensitive or chemical sensitive in certain areas, we got to figure that balance out. The same time I recognize the cost to the consumer is huge

Mm-hmm.

if you don't have some kind of standard. So that's what we've got to work on as a committee and we will work together in a bipartisan

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I know there are several people in the audience here who have been long-standing advocates for healthy foods. I um wanna thank you for being here, and I hope that this hearing is a strong start for meaningful regulation of food additives, and a big step forward in food safety. Um, I'm I'm, um, encouraged by the new bipartisan interest in this issue, and I'm know and I will commit to you that we will keep carrying this torch forward, not just through the rest of this Congress but into the next Congress, no matter who is holding the gavels in that Congress. I talk a lot about the importance of following the science, and perhaps nowhere is that more important than when it comes to food and nutrition, cuz obviously eating is not optional, what we and we know what we consume has profound impacts on our health. Mister Faber, you have been in this space calling for change for quite some time. And so I wanna ask you, what are some blind spots for FDA in terms of what we do and what we do not know about processed foods?

Thank you for the question. Um, ultra-processed foods now make up sixty percent of our calories, seventy percent of our kids' calories. and we know that they're not only linked to serious health harms like diabetes but they're engineered to be literally irresistible not just delicious but to be irresistible in ways that interfere with our brain's reward centers. Unfortunately the FDA isn't even FDA is not considering some of the questions you've raised Mister Chairman is this cause might this cause a serious health harm might it cause a reaction they're also not considering the extent to which additives and substances are making these foods hyper-palatable, giving these foods addictive properties. And that's not me saying it. That's the head of the National Institute for uh Addiction in the United States saying it's time to look at this question of whether ultra-processed foods are

And they're not looking

addictive, have addictive properties.

And they're not they're not really looking at that question,