In 1990, a doctor filed a petition asking the Food and Drug Administration to ban the use of the additive BHA in food – and they’re still waiting for a response.
BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative used in cured meats and other foods. It’s also found in some types of rubber, plastic and glue. More than 4,600 foods contain BHA. Many studies show it may cause cancer in humans exposed to it through what they eat.
The FDA has considered BHA “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, since 1958, when Congress first passed the law establishing a pre-market food additive review process. This means the FDA allowed it in food without ever reviewing it for safety.
In response to a White House directive to evaluate all GRAS substances, in 1978, the committee conducting this review for BHA found “uncertainties.” The panel recommended further studies on the preservative’s toxicity and its impact on the liver. Despite these concerns, the FDA allowed BHA to remain on the market and retain its GRAS status.
Since then, BHA has been listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65 since 1990 and been classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program since 1991.
The European Union is reviewing BHA’s potential to disrupt the endocrine system. Studies have found the chemical can harm the reproductive system, decreasing sperm quality in males and uterine weight in females. Still other studies have linked BHA to immune system changes, hormone disruption, and other toxic effects.
Pending BHA petition
To explain why the additive should not be allowed in food, Dr. Glenn Scott's 1990 petition to ban BHA cited some of the same concerns, pointing to studies that link BHA to cancer and harm to the liver, lungs and esophagus.
The research linking BHA to health harms has continued to develop in the 34 years since 1990, but the FDA has stayed silent.
In 1990, the agency invited the public to comment on the petition. At the request of industry trade groups, the FDA extended the comment period in early 1991. Since then, the FDA has failed to take any further action. Its website simply says the petition is “under review.”
The FDA is required by law to respond within 180 days to petitions to review food additives. Yet while other authorities have responded to the mounting evidence of the health risks associated with BHA, the FDA has allowed this deadline to lapse 64 times over.
Because of this inaction, more than 4,600 food products, from Boar’s Head sandwiches to Campbell’s tomato soup to Walmart pizzas, continue to contain an additive we’ve known for decades can be harmful.
The FDA’s broken food chemical review system
The FDA’s treatment of BHA is not unique. Nearly 99 percent of food chemicals introduced since 2000 were “approved” by the food and chemical industry, not the FDA.
Even when the FDA does assess chemicals for safety, it moves sluggishly. And it rarely reevaluates its decisions, even when new science raises doubt about them. So the vast majority of chemicals in our food supply haven’t been reviewed for safety for decades, if at all.
What’s more, the FDA is not required to reevaluate the safety of food chemicals once they have been allowed on the market. Because of this, in most cases they simply do not – even when petitioned to do so, or when a chemical is credibly linked to health harms.
For example, in 1990, the FDA banned many uses of Red Dye No. 3, saying studies had shown that very high doses can cause cancer. But 34 years later, Red 3 is still allowed in food, and the FDA has yet to respond to a 2022 petition requesting the agency act on its promise.
Other artificial colors haven’t had a full review in over 40 years, despite strong evidence they can damage childrens’ brains.
What’s next?
With the FDA’s long history of delay and inaction, states have taken measures to protect their consumers from these toxic food chemicals.
In 2023, California became the first state to ban four toxic chemicals in food, including Red 3. Since then, similar bills have been introduced across the country, including bills that would ban BHA in New York and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, the FDA is reorganizing its food program, including development of a long-overdue process for reassessing food chemicals already on the market. But it’s still unclear exactly what this program will look like or if it will effectively protect consumers from chemicals like BHA. The FDA must develop a system that devotes adequate resources and attention to comprehensively evaluating chemicals for all potential health risks and efficiently removes unsafe chemicals from the market.
For BHA and many other questionable food chemicals there are plenty of safer alternatives. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Vitamin E can substitute for BHA, and scientists have noted similar antioxidant properties in natural oils.
What can you do?
The FDA is accepting comments from the public about what its post-market food chemical review process will look like. You can make your voice heard about the importance of establishing a process that will get harmful chemicals like BHA out of food.
While we await state and federal regulation, if you want to lower your intake of harmful food ingredients, you can:
- Consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that don’t use toxic food chemicals like the ones targeted by the state bills. When you’re on the go, use our Healthy Living app to find products free of problematic substances.
- When possible and affordable, limit your intake of ultra-processed foods. Many contain concerning ingredients.
- Choose packaged foods that are certified organic, whenever possible. These products must meet strong standards that protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful additives.
