Bill Overview
Title: Ensuring Safe and Toxic-Free Foods Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Food and Drug Administration to incorporate certain requirements into its regulations about Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) food substances, including specific restrictions on substances that cause cancer or human reproductive or developmental toxicity. The bill also establishes an Office of Food Chemical Safety Reassessment to reassess the safety of GRAS and other specified substances.
Sponsors: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People who consume food products regulated by the FDA
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The bill impacts individuals who consume food products as it concerns the regulation of substances recognized as GRAS by the FDA.
- Any changes to the GRAS substances list could affect the safety and labeling of food products globally as these substances are widely used by food manufacturers.
- People involved in industries related to food production, distribution, and retailing might also be impacted as they may need to adapt to changes in food safety regulations.
- Families and individuals sensitive to food ingredients, such as those with allergies or particular health conditions, may experience a significant impact due to changes in food safety standards.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts the entirety of the US population that consumes FDA-regulated food products, encompassing 333 million people.
- The budget of $450 million in the first year and $3.795 billion over 10 years suggests a significant investment in reassessing and enforcing new safety standards, impacting food manufacturers and consumers.
- A diverse range of population segments will experience different levels of impact based on their dietary habits, health conditions, and professional involvement in the food industry.
- Some individuals, particularly those with health conditions or sensitivities to food ingredients, will find substantial benefits in terms of increased food safety and possibly improved wellbeing.
- The policy's effect on self-reported wellbeing will vary, where those directly affected by previous unsafe substances could see a notable increase, while those less impacted may notice no change.
- Within a vast budget scope, there will be logistical considerations on how these regulations are implemented, impacting various industries differently.
Simulated Interviews
Food Safety Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy represents great progress in food safety.
- Concerns about how quickly manufacturers will comply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Chef (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support safer ingredients, albeit it may increase food costs.
- A great way to ensure customer safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Primary School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know food safety is being prioritized.
- Hopeful for reducing harmful chemicals in food.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Farmer (Houston, TX)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good initiative but discretionary funds need careful management.
- Hope to see more transparency in food labeling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Food and Beverage Industry Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strict regulations might create job insecurities.
- Yet, acknowledging the need for safer food is undeniable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Registered Dietitian (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm all in for enhancing food safety standards.
- Clients will benefit from reduced exposure to chemicals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Organic Farmer (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a positive step forward promoting clean food.
- It reinforces my farm practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially better quality, chemical-free groceries are beneficial.
- Hope it doesn't impact the affordability of groceries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Food Truck Owner (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could ensure trustworthy ingredient suppliers.
- Need to see how it affects sourcing costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Asthmatic Patient Advocate (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hope to see significant improvements in the absence of allergens.
- A good initiative but needs thorough implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 3: $380000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $470000000)
Year 5: $370000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $460000000)
Year 10: $360000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $450000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $440000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance costs for the food industry could lead to higher retail prices, affecting consumer spending.
- A focus on safety might enhance the global competitiveness of US food products.
- Implementation challenges for the FDA, including resource allocation and staffing.