Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, is pushing for stricter regulations in the U.S. food market. His goal is to rein in what he calls “Big Food,” the large companies that dominate food production in the country. However, critics argue that these new regulations may end up benefiting these big corporations more than the average consumer.
Recently, Kennedy directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to eliminate the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) practice. This practice has allowed food producers to use certain additives without prior FDA approval. Under the new directive, companies must now notify the FDA and provide safety data before using new food additives. This is seen as just the beginning of a series of regulations that Kennedy plans to implement.
During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy highlighted a troubling trend: the increase in chronic diseases linked to food additives and processed foods. He stated, “something is poisoning the American people,” pointing to the changing food supply as a major factor.
Last week, Kennedy met with representatives from major food companies like Kraft Heinz, General Mills, and Tyson Foods. While the meeting was labeled as “awkward” by some, the tone was reportedly positive. Kennedy described the discussion as a “great conversation” focused on food safety and transparency. Melissa Hockstad, a leader in the food industry, echoed this sentiment, calling it a constructive dialogue.
However, there are concerns that the new regulations will ultimately favor larger food companies. Compliance with these regulations can be costly. For instance, a recent ban on Red Dye No. 3 in California cost companies millions to switch to alternative dyes. These expenses can be more easily absorbed by large corporations, potentially driving smaller businesses out of the market.
Less competition could lead to higher food prices for consumers. New regulations in California related to pork production are expected to cost consumers an additional $320 million. This financial burden could hit low-income households the hardest, as they spend a larger portion of their income on food.
Critics argue that Kennedy’s approach may inadvertently strengthen the very companies he aims to regulate. With fewer food producers in the market, competition decreases, which could undermine food safety. When companies compete, they strive to offer safer products to attract consumers. More regulations could lead to fewer choices and higher costs for everyone.
As Kennedy moves forward with his plans, some worry about the implications for consumers and smaller food producers. The new regulations, while intended to enhance safety, could instead create a more favorable environment for large corporations and increase food prices for everyday Americans.
