Healthier America: Legislative Proposals on the Regulation and Oversight of Food
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
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 exactly what's 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-1 drugs for weight loss?
And which harmful substances currently in the domestic food supply are we missing in the 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 four priorities and more. But traditionally, Republican policies and inactions have made it harder for families to afford food, harder for science to prevail over industry interests, and harder for FDA to do its job. And so, Mr. Chairman, I would say you all need to move on from this if we really are going to 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, 3,000,000 people have lost their SNAP benefits since the 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 14% in staffing since 2020 simply can't do the investigative scientific work necessary to hold mega corporations to account and prevent foodborne 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 reforming as it hasn't actually made. On March 23, the secretary went on a 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 28 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.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky.
Speaker 3
Thank you, chairman Griffith, and thank you to all of you, thanks to all our witnesses for being here today. Today, we're considering a number of bills addressing FDA's oversight of our nation's food supply. An important discussion is we consider ways to strengthen consumer confidence in the foods Americans eat. The Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again strategy includes several initiatives to ensure our food supply is safe 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 FDA'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 were prioritized for timely information sharing during food safety incidents, like outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Others address producer concerns regarding standards of identity and fair labeling practices.
This committee has a history of strong oversight of 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 for us today would 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 appreciate the opportunity we have in 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'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman McGriven. 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 FSMA in 2010 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 FDA successfully implemented the human foods program to better focus on the food safety and prevention goals of FSMA, 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 FDA finally banned Red Dye 3 in products that the agency regulates, including the food that we feed our kids. That chemical, shown to have lifelong health consequences for children, should never have been in our food supply, and I fought 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 89 people in the human food program with specific expertise in nutrition, infant formula, and food and chemical safety.
The deputy commissioner of that program, Jim Jones, resigned just a few days after noting that determinations were indiscriminate, shortsighted, and made the Trump administration the same for the very people necessary to implement 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 the domestic production of glyphosate. I 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, quote, total surrender to the chemical industry, and Trump ran on a promise of getting dangerous chemicals out of our families' 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 the FDA is not resourced to do the work that's needed on chemical safety. So my bill, H. 4,958, 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 Shakowski's, H. R.
4,306, the Food Chemical Reassessment Act, directly addresses the critical need to protect the food supply by requiring the FDA to review chemicals on 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 and food we feed our infants and babies are safe.
These bills would protect our children from eating harmful chemicals in their food. And although I am pleased that the Republican majority is holding this important legislative hearing today, I'm concerned that some of the Republican proposals actually undermine the 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 kinda summarize, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, I'm not pleased with the president and what the administration is doing when it comes to food safety. I think they're backtracking, but I do think this hearing is important. 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.
Speaker 1
Back. Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen, yields back. We now conclude with members' opening statements. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record.
We wanna thank our witnesses for taking their time to testify before the 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 the law under title 18, section 1001 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 Steven Madurnak, executive director of the association of food and drug officials, Joseph Kalalil. I messed it up. Kalalilillo, president shop right of 100 and county inc.
Chad Hamilton, board member, Cheese Board International Dairy Foods Association, and Scott Faber, senior vice president, Government Affairs, Environmental Working Group. 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 1 minute left. I will now recognize Mister Modernak for five minutes to give his opening statement.
Speaker 5
Chairman Griffith, ranking member DeGet, chairman Guthrie, ranking member Pologne, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Steven Mondernock, and I am the executive director of the Association of Food and Drug Officials or AFDO. AFTO has served for 130 years as a convener of state, local, federal, tribal, and territorial regulators who run America's integrated food safety system. Before joining AFFO, I spent more than 15 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 100% of the retail food inspections. Every restaurant, every grocery store, every convenience store. States conduct nearly 90% 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 93% of produce safety inspections, all grade A milk inspections, and shellfish 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 programs, freeing the 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 Cosmetic 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 ByHeart infant formula recall last year involved 48 confirmed and probable cases of infant botulism across 17 states.
In the first week of that recall, state employees conducted nearly 2,000 recall effectiveness checks at retail. They found recalled infant formulas still on the shelves in 7% of the stores they visited. But here's the problem. While 2,000 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 list from the FDA without special information sharing agreements that often take months to effectuate.
In many cases, jurisdictions were forced to wait functionally five days for the 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 bureaucratic delay. And consumers, and in this case infants, are the ones who paid the price for the delay. That is exactly why AFFO strongly supports HR 8430, the federal and state food safety information sharing act introduced by representative Ruley, who serves on this subcommittee, and representative Ross. 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.
HR 8430 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 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 regulated community and can be the first to identify emerging issues.
A balanced, narrowly tailored approach to preemption preserves national consistency 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 HR 8430 to fix information sharing and applying preemption with care will make the whole integrated food safety system stronger. AFTO and our members stand ready to serve as a resource to the subcommittee, and thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Chairman yields back. Now I recognize Mister Kalalillo. Did I get it right that time? Kalalillo? Got it right that time.
Okay.
Speaker 6
Chairman Griffiths, ranking member DeGet, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Joe Colalillo, president of Shoppered in 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 1993. I've been on the board of directors of Wakefront Food Corporation since 1989 and served as chair from 2005 to 2023. Advancing food safety is my passion.
I've led food safety and quality assurance committees within Wakefront and as a board member of FMI, the Food Industry Association. One principal 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 most efficient in the world.
Today, my message to you is straightforward. We need one clear science-based 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 Wake Fern, our retailer-owned cooperative operates across nine states: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. The 43 family owners of Wake Fern have the good fortune of being represented by 10 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Frank Pallone, Tom Cain, Paul Tonko, Yvette Clark, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jake Auchincloss, Rob Menendez, John Joyce, Nick Langworthy, and Lori Trahan.
Our co-op was established in 1946 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 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 distribution. 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 of 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 conflicting state laws. We currently have 4,000,000 square feet of warehouse space and 51,000 grocery and frozen items slotted in those warehouses. Assuming that only 50% of those items were impacted by packaging and formulation changes, we would need 8,500,000 more square feet of warehouse space, over a 100% increase, to bring the same product offerings that we do today to market.
This would cost an additional $1,500,000,000 to construct the 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, groceries 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, consistent rules. We urge you to support legislation like the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act that allows and requires the 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 parties can collaborate to ensure food safety and affordability for all Americans. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Jimenez Bank now recognize mister Hamilton for his five-minute opening statement.
Speaker 7
Thank you, subcommittee chairman Griffith and ranking member DeGut, committee chair Guthrie, and ranking member Palone. I appreciate the invitation to testify at today's hearing. I'm in support of HR 1394, 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 IDFA, and its Cheese Industry Segment Board. I serve on the Cheese Industry Segment Board for Sergeantal 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 2015. IDFA represents the nation's dairy manufacturing and marketing industry, which supports more than 3,000,000 jobs that generate 52,000,000,000 in direct wages and 779,000,000,000 in overall economic impact. IDFA's diverse membership includes multinational organizations, single plant companies, 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 cheesemakers have long used the term natural cheese to differentiate cheeses made using a simple process that has been trusted by traditional cheesemakers 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 understanding, the distinction is not 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 cheese. 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 cheese 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 in the 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 practice.
The Kurt 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 CURD act permits the use of the term natural cheese if one of two conditions is satisfied. First, 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 the 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 Cheesemakers Association, and the Wisconsin Dairy Products Association. In conclusion, the CURT Act is a straightforward, bipartisan solution to a longstanding 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 the 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 CDRT Act.
Speaker 8
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking member, Dagad. I'm grateful to be here and to testify. I'm Scott Faber.
I'm testifying today on behalf of the 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. We all agree that food 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.
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 smoking. As consumers struggle to distinguish between UPFs 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 additives that have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer.
And, in particular, nearly 99% of new food chemicals have since 2000 been approved for safety by the food chemical companies, not by the FDA. And the FDA rarely reconsiders the safety of the thousands of chemicals we're already eating. Many of these new chemicals have been added to our food without the FDA's knowledge. In response, our states have played an important complementary role, phasing out 11 chemicals out of 4,000, 11 of the most troubling chemicals from our food, especially from our school foods. And I know all of 11 of these have been removed from Wake Fern's store brand, which I'm grateful for.
Thank you for that. Many of the bills 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 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 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 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 that is the subject of today's hearing proposed, 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 the FDA, nor should we allow a new chemical to be presumed safe simply because the FDA has missed a deadline. 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 Mondanark, 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 access to healthier options. Many 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 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 a 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We will now begin 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, because then we go over. 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 keeping our witnesses here until seven or 08:00 tonight. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Some tough issues, and these bills are here so that we can get the information. We appreciate y'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 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 related to making sure that we're doing this in a manner that we don't make the expense of warehousing or distribution so high that we can't deal with it. So we have to move from there, 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 mister Hamilton, I will say right off the bat that I have already been lobbied today by mister Style on the curd bill.
He came to me and said this is very important. Now, mister, it's a hard afternoon. Carillo. 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, because 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.
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 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 Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia 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, etc., impacts costs. And you talked earlier about that, but those costs impact your ability to stock inventories you talked about on the warehouses. Those costs get passed on to the consumer, and it's a problem. So do you think having an agreed upon labeling standard would help with this and bring down the cost of food or at least not make it go up any higher? The cost for both food for the manufacturer to produce and the consumer to buy.
Speaker 6
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 a patchwork of laws, it clearly complicates it. We have a store in Eastern Pennsylvania and in Phillipsburg, 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 delineated. However, you have a huge cost of customer confusion about what is good, what is bad. You know, we want to give our customers the safest food supply.
Whatever the government, in our case, we suggest the FDA determines, that's what we should be following. If we have to have an arc, we have four, 4,000 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.
Speaker 1
And that's my general philosophy. But I also recognize Mister Faber's point. If there are thousands of new chemicals, the consumer needs to figure out some way. And the FDA, I don't know that the FDA 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 to them.
I there must be something in there that I don't know about. But I can tell the diff now none of them are fatal, and I'm not gonna, you know, go into anaphylactic shock, 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 pain reliever. The coating on the base ingredient might have something, and I just have to do trial and error. So we've gotta figure out how 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 gotta figure out that balance. At the same time, I recognize the cost of the consumer is huge. Mhmm. If you don't have some kind of standard. So that's what we've gotta work on as a committee, and we will work together in a bipartisan fashion, I feel, and move forward with this. And I now yield back.
I now recognize my colleague, Mister Ghett, the ranking member of this subcommittee.
Speaker 2
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 want to 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. I'm encouraged by the new bipartisan interest in this issue, and I 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.
Because obviously, eating is not optional. What we know and what we consume has profound impacts on our health. Mr. Faber, you have been in this space calling for change for quite some time. And so I want to ask you, what are some blind spots for the FDA in terms of what we do and what we do not know about processed foods?
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question. Ultra processed foods now make up 60% of our calories, 70% 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 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 these additives and substances are making these foods hyperpalatable, giving these foods addictive properties. And that's not me saying it. That's the head of the National Institute for Addiction in the United States saying it's time to look at this question.
Speaker 8
Of course not. And, unfortunately, most chemicals, most of these additives and substances enter commerce without the FDA ever reviewing whether they have acute harms, chronic harms, or contribute to hyperpalatability. If we create a system where food chemical companies can bypass FDA review altogether, we'll never get the answers to those questions.
Speaker 2
That's right. And under the Biden administration, the FDA set up a nutrition center of excellence, which is a great first step, as the ranking member of the full committee said. And I applaud this decision, but I'm concerned without a statutory mandate and dedicated resources and personnel, it simply can't live up to its promise. What do you think would make such a center of excellence successful?
Speaker 8
Well, first and foremost, the FDA needs resources. We all know that laying off 20% of the FDA workforce sets us back. Relying on appropriate resources to begin to make up that difference isn't ultimately a solution. We need to find a way to properly fund the FDA so that they can answer some of these questions about which ingredients.
Speaker 2
And also give it to the authorities. Fund it and give it to the authorities. Right?
Speaker 2
And I've got to say, mister chairman, I wanna thank you for putting my bill into this hearing because developing evidence in nutrition and food safety and then acting on it is critical to Americans' health. And so I'm working on this bill. It's called the NURISH Act, a bill almost as good a name as the CURT Act, by the way. It's a bill that, in conjunction with reforms like better food labeling and closing the grass loophole, will bring FDA's human food program into this century. As mister Faber said, there are just too many unanswered questions about nutrition and food safety between ultra processed foods, food additives, packaging, how people choose foods, and on and on.
And so what I envision the NURISH Act doing is turbocharging FDA's regulatory science and research capacity in human foods. And then, we can try to make these findings available to the general public. And so we all know, I mean, all of us know that we need to improve nutrition and food safety in this country. And I'm hoping that the work the NURISH Act will do spur the evidence that we need. And I will put out the hand right now to say any Republican who wants to work with me on it, you're welcome to jump in, and we will do it.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, he yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you for the recognition, and I appreciate our witness being here. So I'll begin with, as the Maha movement has grown in its prominence, we're hearing about more states passing their own laws in the absence of a national standard that meets customer expectations. So, Colalillo, being in the grocery business, how have you seen the demand for products with more transparent ingredients and labeling change over the last few years?
Speaker 6
The consumer is clearly looking for more information. In our stores, we offer in-store dietitians to help consumers navigate the aisles. Mhmm. And that's helpful. And you see in many supermarket retailers' flyers, and a dietitian to contact as well.
But the consumer clearly wants to know more about fresh foods, wants to know about more healthy foods. They come to us with different health conditions, and they inquire about how they can eat better. And in the supermarket, there's a phrase that we use food as medicine. There's no doubt that food can help people in their, you know, health needs. So I think that the consumer is more and more aware of what they're feeding themselves as well as their families.
Speaker 3
Thank you. And so to keep the same with you, Kalalila, as consumers want more information and demand more information, quite honestly, that the pressure usually starts sometimes at the state level. And so we're seeing states pass laws, and there's a clear demand for change, and states are passing laws. But my concern is it becomes a patchwork of laws across the state. And if you have international interstate commerce, which clearly is in our jurisdiction, then it does become some issues with predictability.
And, of course, if you have two products that are similar, if I have this and it has a different label, then it creates two inventories. So it creates more cost for the system. I mean, it costs more money. If you're talking about affordability, I'm in logistics from my background. So how are you navigating, Mr. Khalil?
How are you navigating these different state frameworks and practice, and what impact are you seeing on your operations and, ultimately, the prices and products and options your consumers have?
Speaker 6
Well, as of now, we haven't seen a lot of this based on the states in which we operate. I know New York has a very strict, regulated Mhmm.
Speaker 3
So do you have, if New York passes a rule, do you just do everything according to every state according to New York?
Speaker 3
You try to do something for New York and something for your other states, which increases costs, hasn't it?
Speaker 6
Think part of the challenge here becomes we can only do that so much. Right? And the question becomes when that becomes a problem, we're just gonna have to discontinue items. You know, we won't choose to do that. And if it depends on how many.
Speaker 3
Well, if you do, just costs more money because it's essentially even though it's the same bottle of water, it's two different inventories. Right?
Speaker 6
Well, absolutely. And I think there's something from, we used to own our co op a dairy plant. Mhmm. And we used to produce milk. And every time that line had a change to put a new label up, it costs money.
Speaker 6
Efficiency in manufacturing. That's real. So as we put labels and different labels on different products, and then you have the inventory, the transportation costs, it's a real cost. Understanding if we just add possibly a barcode or not a barcode. A QR code with more information, that's one label that goes on it.
One addition to the label that goes across all brands. Right? But when you start saying nine different labels.
Speaker 3
Increase 9 different inventories. Yeah. So, thanks. So this isn't the first time the committee has taken a serious look at the way FDA, mister Mondornok. I'm gonna ask you this.
So, it's not the first time that we've taken a look at this. In fact, we passed FISMA 15 years ago. The committee's exam reforms to grasp. The process now, the FDA federal framework interacts with laws that states have passed. So having said that, as someone on the front line, Mister Mondragon, as someone on the front lines of implementing major federal food laws, what are important considerations policymakers should keep in mind as we consider further reforms?
Speaker 5
Well, I would say the absolute most important thing is to really enable us to share information between federal, state, and local governments. We do work very much together. We work together to solve many problems, and that's the most efficient method for the consumers.
Speaker 3
Yeah. What do you think are the biggest gaps? When you say we need to share information, what are the gaps?
Speaker 5
The biggest gap right now is the inability to share information in events. So, for example, we have a recall going on. FDA cannot share that distribution list with the state and local governments quickly anyway. They may be able to under certain information-sharing agreements, but local governments almost never have them.
Speaker 3
So we need to make sure critical information gets there, without creating so much noise that actually makes it harder for frontline officials to operate. Appreciate that. And that finishes my questions, and I'll yield back my 13 seconds.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his five minutes of questions, Mr. Blanc.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was listening to the testimony, I realized that I've worked with all 4 of you in various capacities over the years. So I didn't realize that at first, but particularly Mr. Faber, of course. So I wanna, you know, obviously, I fundamentally believe that ingredients used in our food and marketed to us should be transparent and safe. And that's why I introduced HR 4958, the Grocery Reform and Safety Act, to close the loophole that allows companies to introduce chemicals into our kids' lunches and our food without conducting a safety review and without public safety information.
And, let me, I guess my questions are all, Mister Faber. One of the key points of my bill is transparency. Transparency in the information that must be submitted in a GRAS notice, the scientific data that is relied upon for the GRAS listing, and through the opportunity for public comments. So it would require an affirmative response from the agency and allow the FDA to revoke a GRAS listing if there's public information about the safety of the substance. So let me just ask Mister Favreau, what do you think about this proposal?
And secondly, my bill would also continue to allow states to take action against chemicals where data shows they are dangerous to their residents. Is that an important protection to maintain?
Speaker 8
Yes. Thank you for the question. It's for consumers to have confidence that these substances and additives are safe, they need a regulator, someone they trust to actually review the science in a way that makes them confident that someone has really reviewed these ingredients to know that they're safe to eat. So for a regulator to be able to do that, they have to know things. How much of this will be eaten?
What risks might be posed? And the public should have a say in that process and expect a response from the FDA. And, ultimately, it should be up to the FDA to decide, not the chemical company, whether or not that substance or additive is safe to eat. We don't think that system doesn't exist today. Unfortunately, the vast majority of new food chemicals are reviewed for safety by the food chemical companies, and that's why states have stepped in.
States have stepped in. Three states, Arkansas, West Virginia, and California, have stepped in to ban 11 ingredients that have been banned in other countries and have known health harms from the foods we all enjoy. So we know that companies can make these foods without these ingredients because they make them all over the world. They make them for Canada. They make them for the UK.
They make them for Latin America and Europe. So here's the good news. They cost the same amount. Mister, Kalila's wholesome pantry line, correct, makes all of, doesn't use any of the 11 ingredients that are banned by these three states. And I wager that those wholesome pantry brands are no more costly, or maybe even less expensive, because they're store brands.
So I so companies like Wakefern, but companies all across the world have shown we can make these foods without these toxic chemicals, without increasing the price of the food. And I'll just finish by saying, in response to your question, Mister Palone, many of you were state legislators. I know, Mister Griffith, you were a state legislator for many years. And so, you know, state legislators talk to one another. They're very thoughtful.
They look at the science. In the case of legislators in West Virginia, Arkansas, and California, I know because I've worked with many of them, they simply looked at what the science told us about the safety of these 11 additives and looked at what happened in other countries and ultimately decided if the FDA wasn't gonna act to protect us, that they as state legislators had a duty to protect us. So, sorry to go off.
Speaker 4
This, and I wanna get to it. My bill authorizes the FDA to collect user fees for review of food additive submissions and chemicals. Have congressional appropriations proven to be sufficient to ensure the safety of our food supply? And if not, how could a user fee structure help ensure that our food is safe and properly labeled, if you will? You've got 45 seconds.
Speaker 8
Yeah. So I'll just say, I think, quite obviously, the FDA doesn't have the resources it currently needs to make sure the chemicals we eat every day are safe. Some combination of fees, user fees, other fees is necessary to make sure that FDA can do the job that mister Khalilah described. And, the good news is industry benefits from the FDA having the resources to do their job because consumers have more confidence, and they are more likely to enjoy the products that they're offering in their stores.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the vice chairman of this subcommittee, my colleague, Ms. Diana Harshberger.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. The safety and reliability of our nation's food supply requires serious oversight and very thoughtful policymaking. And as a clinical pharmacist, I've been involved with, focused on nutrition and functional medicine, alternative medicines, on reformulation of specific medications where we had to take a dye or an additive or a binder out to do for specific patients. So I believe our approach must be grounded in science and a clear understanding of how policy affects patient access. And that's really why I'm disappointed that the committee is not considering a bipartisan bill that I have.
It's HR 2300. And this legislation addresses a very urgent threat to the domestic supply of specialized cow milk-based preterm infant formula, which are products used in hospitals under physician supervision to sustain premature infants and which have been on the market for more than four decades. And over the past couple of years, there's been a surge in litigation targeting the only two manufacturers of these products. And so these lawsuits attempt to link the formula to necrotizing enterocolitis. But the federal health agencies and neonatology experts agree there's no conclusive evidence establishing causation, and these formulas remain part of the standard care when human milk is unavailable or is insufficient for that infant.
And despite that, there's been nearly a thousand forum shopping lawsuits, and large jury verdicts are creating a real risk that these manufacturers could actually exit the market. And so, you know, there's a time, when supply is already fragile, and I'm concerned that your problem could even worsen. And it could be detrimental because you have over 300,000 premature infants that are born in the United States every year. And for many of these products, are not just optional. They're absolutely essential.
And Congress has stepped in before when litigation was threatened for critical industries, and I think we should be willing to do that again. And I urge the committee to take a closer look at the issue and work with us on a path forward that protects safety and access. And I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record just a summary of HR 23 and its relevant precedents.
Speaker 9
Ordered. Mister Colealiyah, my district is a rural district that borders Morgan's district, the chairman. We have Bristol. I have Bristol, Tennessee. He has Bristol, Virginia.
And he's already asked one of my questions about how that will affect access, you know, in different marketplaces when you have different standards. And so what risk does this pose for access to food in rural or disaster-impacted communities, and how important is a strong uniform FDA-led framework to ensuring reliability and availability nationwide?
Speaker 6
Well, I think that, again, the one standard is best. Every state deciding what to do is not good. It becomes down to if there's a point in time because products are so complicated, because you have to offer so many, that items just get discontinued. You know, that items stop being carried by retailers because either they can't afford to add the additional space in their warehousing operations, or the distribution costs are so high. It's not, there comes a point where, you know, our average retailer, our profit margin is less than 2%.
So how many costs can we just continue to absorb that don't get passed on to the consumer? But I do think it's an issue of product availability when if all of a sudden we start to have, you know, if I'm a retailer that operates in nine states, then I have nine different formulations. There's something that has to give there. And I think product availability is a big one that could happen here. It is.
Absolutely.
Speaker 9
Mister Mondran, your testimony notes that poor coordination can lead to duplicative requests and added burdens on businesses. And from your perspective, how do inconsistent federal actions or overly complex regulatory frameworks impact food producers, supply chains, and ultimately, affordability for families?
Speaker 5
Well, they absolutely do impact food producers. There's no doubt. If there are differences, there should be differences for a reason.
Speaker 9
Yeah. Exactly. Listen. I have a rural district just like the chairman does. And, when people can't afford or don't have access to specific things, it's a huge problem for these people.
So with that, sir, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gently yields back. Now recognize Doctor Ruiz for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too have a rural district, and one of our largest industries is the ag industry. So being able to get healthy fresh produce into the mouths of especially those that face food insecurity is very important to me and to many of the growers there, without any additional burdens that they may face. The work the FDA does to ensure food quality and safety is essential to consumer protection as well. Consumers have the right to know what is in the foods and supplements they are putting in their bodies, and the FDA has the responsibility to ensure that information is clear and transparent and publicly available.
Clear guidance and a consistent federal framework are also important to helping our nation's hardworking growers ensure our kitchen tables have food, food that is safe, nutritious, and that is affordable. Now a number of bills are being considered today to address the legal category of the generally recognized as safe substances, or what I'll refer to as GRAS. And as we explore reforming GRAS or the labeling of GRAS through these three bills that we're discussing today, we need to get a better understanding of how these changes would impact the availability and safety of food at each point in the supply chain, including at the source. For example, certain produce items use naturally derived substances such as wax coating to extend shelf life and reduce food waste. I've been hearing concerns from some growers in my district about what changes in the federal grass policy might mean for them in the fresh fruit and vegetables industry. In particular, Steve Brazil from the Project Food Box has this concern and many others.
And, look, I worked at a packing house. I remember those nice, shiny citruses, oranges, tangerines, and grapefruits. They're healthy. But the question is, how are these changes going to affect the ability of growers to use these naturally derived products? So, mister Faber, how would naturally derived products such as the natural wax coating be handled under grass reform?
Speaker 8
Yeah. Thank you for the question. I actually know quite a bit about waxes and coatings because I worked with assembly member Jesse Gabriel, California on his bill to define ultra processed foods and phase them out of California schools. And one of the things we chose to do, the assembly chose to do, was to exclude waxes and coatings from the kinds of substances that might make foods hyperpalatable. But I also learned
Speaker 10
So is that how, is that what you recommend the FDA to do, to go back and determine which ones are naturally derived and which ones, previous chemicals, are not naturally derived that need more scrutiny?
Speaker 8
Well, the waxes and coatings are a great example of a category of substances that have not been reviewed, reconsidered for safety by the FDA for many decades. So most of those shiny coatings are likely safe. The last time they were reviewed by the FDA, thoroughly reviewed for safety, was in many cases in the 80s.
Speaker 8
We need it. Yeah. And that is good for the producers because they'll have confidence about
Speaker 10
The is to make sure that these naturally derived products like wax don't have to go through onerous regulations for the growers to submit. Correct?
Speaker 8
Right. And if you were asking yourself which chemical should we reconsider, we would start with the ones that we really know are harmful. Waxes and coatings are not likely to be among those.
Speaker 10
Okay. And as of now, there's a loophole where companies can self-determine if a substance is grass through self-affirmation and don't have to report that substance to the FDA. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.
So how do we close that loophole, and what should we do with the substances already deemed as grass by these companies, versus the naturally derived substances that are grass, like wax? What should we do to how can we close these loopholes?
Speaker 8
Two of the bills under consideration today would narrow the loophole so that chemicals that are new to commerce, that are new to science, have to be affirmatively These
Speaker 8
But both the GRAS bill, the mister Polloin's GRAS bill and missus Szechowski's Food Chemical Reassessment Act would require the FDA with fee revenue to begin to reconsider which of these ingredients should still remain in food, just as we do for pesticides. I know something you're familiar with. Every 15 years, we ask, are these pesticides still safe to use and eat? We should have a similar process for the food chemicals we allow to be added to our food.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Yields back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mister Bill Rakes, for his five minutes of question.
Speaker 11
Mister chairman. I appreciate it. Florida's citrus industry is one of our state's most iconic and economically important commodities, as you know. And for generations, our growers have delivered high-quality orange juice to breakfast tables across the country and around the world. But in recent years, our citrus growers have faced extraordinary challenges, most of you know this, from citrus greening, hurricanes, drought, pests, and rising costs.
These challenges have contributed to decreased natural sugar content in oranges, creating complications under FDA's decades-old standard of identity for pasteurized orange juice. That means more of today's Florida crop risks being diverted to lower-value products, even though the fruit is safe, nutritious, and high quality. The Trump administration's FDA has taken an important step forward, proposing a rule last August to modify the standard to 10%. Codifying this change in statute would provide our growers with the long-term certainty they need to invest, plan, compete. That's why I was proud to join a bipartisan group of my Florida colleagues in introducing HR 933, the Defending Domestic Orange Juice Production Act.
This bill is a common-sense fix that would update the BRIC standard to 10% and provide our growers the flexibility they need to keep American-grown orange juice on American shelves. We all want that. So, Kalilo, your testimony emphasized the importance of clear, science-based federal standards that support affordability and reliability for the food supply. Question number one, why is it important for FDA's standard of identity to keep pace with real-world conditions facing domestic producers?
Speaker 6
I think that, you know, again, if it's one standard, everybody's on the same playing field. Right? And I that's the only thing I could just keep coming back to because that one standard gives everybody clear directions, whether they're growers, manufacturers, retailers who have private brands. So if I understood your question correctly, sir.
Speaker 11
Okay. Next question, a follow-up. From your perspective, as a grocer, when domestic supply of a staple, like orange juice, again tightens, what does that mean for product availability, prices, the consumers you serve every day, in your opinion?
Speaker 6
I would say that, you know, when we have competition, it's a beautiful thing in the industry. Right? Whether it's against manufacturers or retailers. And if the domestic crop is not producing, we have to rely on imported juice. And I believe most of that juice comes from Brazil.
And, you know, I think we have to ensure that, again, whatever the federal standard is, that it's fair to our domestic producers as well as our importers. So one federal standard is clearly would be able to do that.
Speaker 11
Very good. Okay, Mr. Hamilton. Dairy farmers in my district rely on meaningful federal standards that are consistently enforced. HR 8414, the Dairy Pride Act, would require FDA to enforce standards for dairy terms like milk, yogurt, and cheese when products do not meet those standards or are not properly labeled as imitations. So another question here, and, again, this is for Mister Hamilton.
Why is it important that standardized dairy terms carry a clear and consistent meaning on the shelf for both consumers and producers, please?
Speaker 7
I appreciate your question. I'm here primarily to speak about the CURT Act. I'm not here as a witness or to offer testimony on the Dairy Pride Act today.
Speaker 11
Is there anyone else who would like to respond with regard to that question? I just please offer,
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question, Mister Larakas. As you know, in 2023, the FDA issued guidance to help consumers avoid confusion. So, they allowed plant-based milk and other plant-based companies to use the term milk. However, they required it to make clear that the product was the product of a plant, of a nut or a pea, and so on. That seemed like a reasonable compromise.
If it turns out that consumers continue to be confused, then it makes sense for Congress to act to make sure that folks know what they're bargaining for.
Speaker 11
Yeah. I agree. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple more, but I'll submit them for the record. Appreciate your back.
Speaker 1
Go. Alrighty. We'll now recognize the gentle lady from Michigan, Miss Dingle, for her five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 12
Thank you, mister chairman, and thanks to you and Rep. to get for holding this hearing on something every American cares about, the safety of the food we're feeding our families. As a co-chair of the congressional PFAS task force and a member of the food safety caucus, these issues have long been a top priority for me. Forever chemicals known as PFAS are in products that we use every day, including in our food packaging. Fast food was wrapped in it. Teflon pans, if you're a lousy cook, they're more useful than you would ever know.
Hey, I am, you know. But I don't use it now. And most Americans don't even know the risks that they face daily. Consumers have a right to know what's in their food supply, and Americans deserve to have a government that acts when something in our food supply poses a health risk. States across the country are responding and have passed laws banning various chemicals in our food supply.
And now we need to file suit with strong federal legislation to ensure hazardous chemicals are not allowed in or near the food we eat. Mr. Farber, my understanding is that under current law a company could initially submit a GRAS, generally recognized as safe, for those who don't know it, notice to FDA. But if they receive a question from the FDA, they may decide to withdraw their notice and put the food chemical into commerce to avoid the additional safety checks. Do we know how many of these so-called secret grass chemical companies are using in our food?
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question. And I just want to reiterate what you've said because it sounds so ridiculous. But it is true that companies can submit a gross notice. If the FDA has questions, they can withdraw the notice and bring the chemical into food anyways, even though the FDA had questions about the harms that the chemical might cause. We don't know because they are secret grass chemicals.
We did find more than 100 secret gas chemicals, about half of which are showing up in thousands of foods. These are chemicals that were either the subject of grass notices that were withdrawn or were never the subject of grass notices. Companies just opted to bring them into food without ever telling the FDA. It could be hundreds, it could be more. We just don't know.
Speaker 12
So let's build on that. One of the bills today would allow for chemicals to be marketed without an affirmative finding from the FDA that the chemical is safe, or at least an acknowledgment that the agency doesn't plan to object to the safety information submitted. What is the importance of the FDA reviewing and providing such an acknowledgment?
Speaker 8
It just seems obvious to anyone who eats or sells food to consumers that we all want someone we can trust who has looked at the science and told us this chemical, it's a chemical, is safe to eat. Just allowing a chemical into commerce because the FDA has missed a deadline is not the same thing as having a trusted expert say it's safe.
Speaker 12
Thank you. I'm also interested in the role that states have played since one of the concerns we've heard about today is the difficulty that companies and grocery stores would face if states were allowed to continue their own testing of chemicals to have them removed from foods. How many states have banned the type of chemicals we're talking about right now, and how many chemicals have been banned?
Speaker 8
So today, three states, Arkansas, West Virginia, and California, have banned 11 chemicals out of 4,000 that can be added to our food, 11 out of 4,000. And companies are not simply creating one variety of food for those states and another variety of food for the 47 other states. They are reformulating all of the foods that they offer to us in all 50 states, just without the chemicals that have been banned in other countries around the globe.
Speaker 12
So what is the importance of the state's role in regulating chemicals in our food products? Do you think the federal government is spending enough on testing in this space or doing enough?
Speaker 8
We wouldn't be having this conversation today if it weren't for states like West Virginia and Arkansas and California and others leading the way, protecting us from toxic chemicals, and forcing this conversation about the role that the FDA has played and not played for many decades.
Speaker 12
Thank you. I'll yield back since I only have 8 seconds now. But I have more questions for.
Speaker 1
We'll get him on the record. Alright. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Obernote, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Cole Leo, I found your testimony really compelling when you talk about the complications of different food labeling requirements in different states. And, we've heard a number of my colleagues talk about the fact that many districts are right on the boundary between different states and how ridiculous it might be to have a district that's boundary boundaried by four states with, you know, four different versions of food labeling requirements. So, but mister Monternak actually gave some compelling testimony, kind of, the counterpoint to that, which is that traditionally states have been at the forefront of ensuring food safety, and states do have a lane to play in the regulation of food safety. So, how do you navigate this space?
Because, on the one hand, you can make a pretty compelling argument that we in Congress have an Article One responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. And at this point, you can argue that labeling requirements definitely fall into that category. But, also, as Mister Mondronak pointed out, under our system of federalism, consumer protection is something we've traditionally relegated to the states. And, if someone were to, as mister Hamilton pointed out, confusingly mislabel natural cheese, something that's not a natural cheese and natural cheese, that might be something that a state is going to look into as an unfair, deceptive business practice. So, how do you navigate this?
Because everyone has made excellent points, but, I mean, really, we have to suss out, you know, where the federal lane here is that should be preemptive, and where the state lanes are.
Speaker 6
So, thank you. So we have great relationships with all our state and local agencies. You know, we work with them hand-in-hand. Mister Vanderk mentioned recalls and how important they are to the food safety system. I think when you look at different states, they have varying capabilities.
Right? I mean, think of some of the different funding that those states might put towards regulation. If there's not a federal government that oversees this overall, the states that choose to not invest resources or the states that choose not to regulate, what happens to the consumers in those states? Those states are left to the guidance of whom to make sure that food is safe. So when we have different states all interpreting different food safety initiatives, it's not science based or it may not be science based. We need one reliable source.
And I think that every state has to we're in two states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. One state, heavily regulated, the other state, not regulated at all or compared to the one. So I think that while we have great relationships with all the states we deal with, we still believe that a federal oversight, well funded, with the same purpose we all have is to provide our country with safe food as what's most necessary, and it will be the most efficient and effective. It has to be funded. There has to be time limits.
There has to be a cooperative nature of getting foods to market that are proven safe, but it just can't be. 50 states deciding whether to regulate or not.
Speaker 14
Sure. Well, I agree with you. And food labeling requirements are a particularly clear and compelling case for that. But just playing devil's advocate, we can't base our preemption on whether a state has adequately funded its food safety efforts. Right?
It's those are rooted in our constitutional principles and have to apply to all the states. Mister Mannernacht, you brought up in your testimony the unfortunate recent incident where infant formula was recalled, and that was initiated by us, an investigation led by my own state of California that found an increase in infant botulism linked to powder formula. And in your testimony, you were talking about how the overall response was constrained by limited access to information. Could you talk a little bit more about what information could have been shared to make that recall work better?
Speaker 5
The distribution lists with the local agencies would have been the primary improvement that we could have had. There are thousands of local agency employees that could have helped us do those recall audit checks almost instantaneously. Oh, instead, we had to wait 5 days to make that happen.
Speaker 14
And these are distribution lists that were available to the federal government but weren't able to be shared because of current law?
Speaker 14
Yeah. Well, hopefully, we can, through the bills that we're considering in this hearing, maybe fix that situation. Well, thank you very much to all of our witnesses for being here. I'm really enjoyed your testimony.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Kelly, for her five minutes of questions.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Chair Griffith, and Ranking Member to get for convening this hearing. Nutrition is a vital part of every American's health, and something that I was looking forward to working with this administration and the HHS secretary on. However, the actions by the president and his administration have not done a lot to make America healthy again. Instead, they've only led to policies and regulations that are anything but healthy. Cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC are making healthy foods and formula that families desperately need inaccessible.
Unnecessary tariffs and warants have disrupted our food supply and made it unaffordable. In addition, mass doge staffing cuts terminated FDA staff that had high levels of infant formula and nutrition supply chain expertise, undercutting efforts in the health and safety of our food system. We need to do so much more to make sure our food and infant formula supply is accessible, affordable, and safe for all. Mister Mandanak, states play a critical role in our efforts to keep our food and infant formula safe. Can you explain the role states play in an investigation like the By Heart infant formula contamination case or the lead-contaminated cinnamon apple sauce case from several years ago?
Speaker 5
Sure. So the first rule is epidemiology is primarily done at the state level. So in other words, working with the people that are impacted to try to figure out what the likely cause is, often then testing the initial products to look for that particular cause. North Carolina, and lead and applesauce is a great example where the state of North Carolina did find was able to find the lead and the applesauce actually through what was a lead investigation that originally started out to be thought to be lead paint. So they did a great job there.
So those are two roles. Infant formula itself is one of those areas that I would say is highly technical and largely should be handled by the FDA directly, which is the plan that we've agreed to. I think we've all, from the state level, we see huge advantages to that. It is unique. There are very few firms in the country.
That is one that I would put on that list under the bridge project, where that is something the FDA should be focused on.
Speaker 17
Thank you so much. I know firsthand the important role state and local governments play in making our food and infant formulas safe. Many of the farmers from my district, of which there are over 4,000, have informed me over the years on my annual farm tours about the importance of good local and state regulations and investigations for food safety and supply chains. Mister Faber, one of the bills we are discussing today, the federal and state food safety information sharing act of 2026, aims to allow for improved communication between states, local governments, territories, and tribes. Can you speak to the need for strong communication between these bodies, and how this bill could help improve food safety?
Speaker 8
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the question. I was lucky to work with many of you on the Food Safety Modernization Act, 15 years ago. And, at that time, we didn't do enough to make sure that information was being shared when there was an outbreak.
And if any of us who work in the food industry know, being able to quickly identify the source of an outbreak and clear that contaminated food from our pantries and our store shelves is the most effective way to save lives. So the more that we can get our different levels of government working together in those moments, the more lives will be saved.
Speaker 8
Well, I know from working with mister Mondanak that there are necessary barriers when it when we're in those hot moments, when we need to identify the source of an outbreak and engage our state and local partners to respond and quickly clear the shelves. We one big problem is the resources. The FDA simply doesn't have enough people to manage recalls and to make sure that contaminated product has actually been removed from the shelves. So as we think about how to properly fund the FDA, not simply a question of whether we're able to do food chemical reviews or inspect infant formula plants. We also need resources to make sure that we're properly executing recalls and really making sure that contaminated product isn't getting into our homes.
Speaker 17
Thank you so much. This is not the first time in the last few years that this committee has had a hearing focusing on healthy and safe food, yet there hasn't been any real movement forward. And over the last year, I would argue this administration is moving us backward by making our food supply less safe through chaos and cuts. Families definitely deserve better. Any efforts to legislate on food safety must put the health of all Americans first, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize Doctor Joyce of Pennsylvania for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman, for convening this important hearing to examine pieces of legislation that aim to create a healthier America. As a physician legislator, I understand the importance of enacting health policy with a focus on nutrition and ingredient regulation. By providing consumers with the healthiest food options possible, we can ensure that Americans experience better overall health for generations to come. Consumers are currently faced with confusing choices every time they shop in the dairy aisle at the local grocery store. As kids, we learn probably in about fourth or fifth grade that milk comes from a mammal for the nourishment of its young.
Yet plant-based beverages are being labeled as milk and sold in dairy counters across the United States. How can we expect that consumers make nutritious choices when products are being mislabeled right in front of their eyes? My legislation, the Dairy Pride Act, will ensure that dairy products are accurately labeled, and will protect consumers from this misleading marketing. The benefits are twofold. The Dairy Pride Act was crafted for consumers and for dairy farmers, ensuring honest labeling practices both gives the consumers the clarity that they deserve and supports American dairy farmers.
Dairy products provide essential nutrients that produce strong bones, healthy muscles, and increase brain function. But these higher calorie plant-based alternatives that are being labeled as milk or cheese or yogurt, they do not meet the same nutritional standards as true dairy products. And this is very simple consumer deception. The Dairy Pride Act requires the FDA to enforce accurate labeling of milk, cheese, and yogurt by ensuring that these products meet established nutritional and compositional definitions. For far too long, plant-based alternatives had been marketed to the public using dairy terms, giving consumers the false impression that these alternatives contain the same essential nutrients as true dairy products.
It's very simple. Clarity in the dairy case means clarity for the consumer. Mister Hamilton, when Americans shop for their families in the grocery store, they rely on labels to convey important information. You agree with that? Yes.
I do. Can you explain how a nondairy beverage being labeled as milk or a dairy product can result in confusion surrounding the nutritional value, and what misconceptions does this mislabeling lead to?
Speaker 7
I can speak to that. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. Dairy based foods are nutrient dense and do add significant nutritional value to the American diet. They provide 13 essential nutrients, including calcium, potassium, and vitamin D. As you know, dairy farmers' livelihood is linked to demand for milk and nutritious dairy products, and one of the most nutrient dense foods available to consumers is dairy.
Now, despite the nutritional contribution that dairy-based foods can provide to the diets of Americans, repeated dietary guidelines for Americans have found that the vast majority of US consumers are underconsuming dairy products. So it's important that any legislative, regulatory, enforcement changes meet a basic requirement that food labels, including for plant-based alternatives to animal-sourced foods such as dairy, are truthful and not misleading. So consumers understand and are not confused by nutritional values and voluntary claims for both Cow's Meals products and plant-based alternatives.
Speaker 18
Do you feel that continuing without identifying dairy products as truly being dairy products, derived from a mammal, and producing milk, cheese, and yogurt needs to be implemented to allow the consumer to stop this confusion?
Speaker 7
Yeah. We do agree that there does need to be clear labeling on all these products so they are truthful and not misleading.
Speaker 18
Standards of identity are critical, and they establish a common understanding for the American public to see what they can expect. And as you agreed that labels need to.
Speaker 18
Adequately recognizing what's in the product. Mister Mundarnak, can you speak to the value that firmly enforces standards of identity, what you're buying at the store, provide to consumers when they shop each and every time at a grocery store?
Speaker 5
Absolutely, crucial. And I totally agree with you on the Dairy Foods Act and the concepts. It makes total sense to me that we want to have truth in labeling. Consumers continue to be confused by this particular issue.
Speaker 18
I agree. That confusion needs to stop. Creating a healthier America is dependent on providing the American consumer with clearly defined nutritious food products. The Dairy Pride Act seeks to clarify that. As I said, it clarifies the consumer options in the grocery store, while additionally supporting our dairy farmers.
Accurately labeling products is an essential step, and that starts with labeling only dairy products using dairy terms. I urge the committee to further consider this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Doctor Schreyer, for her five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member DeGet. Also, thank you to all the witnesses for speaking on this important subject, and thank you to the attendees today for your advocacy. I wanna start just by saying that I'm really happy this committee is taking up the important issue of transparency and regulation in our food system. Americans expect to know what is in their food, so they can make informed decisions about what they choose to put in their body and their children's bodies. And I appreciate your comments, doctor Faber, about the fact that even some ingredients that are natural, like sugar and salt, have been used in a way by companies that have made these packaged, processed sweet and salty foods irresistible and addictive, and have had tremendous adverse consequences for child and adult health.
I also just need to call out the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues. At the same time that they are billing this hearing as an action to make America healthy again, they are also introducing bills that give industry a free pass and don't hold them accountable for making sure that food and formula and families are safe. I'm gonna start with infant formula as a pediatrician. Several of the bills that are before the committee today address the safety of baby and toddler food and infant formula. And one bill would require positive test results for pathogens, harmful bacteria, in infant formula to be reported immediately, while another bill would allow companies to essentially self-police and not disclose contamination with bacteria.
I just don't understand why Republicans in this room want to let manufacturers off the hook for reporting contaminated products. We saw the devastating consequences of the infant formula shortage in 2022 that was made worse by a large scale recall of the product that was contaminated, and it was already in people's homes, and it was only discovered after infants died. So requiring reporting as soon as there's a positive result at least allows the FDA to assist the company in immediately addressing the issue, fixing the issue to avoid formula shortages, or at least plan for the shortages. Mister Faber, can you comment on why the discovery of possible formula contamination should be reported immediately to the FDA?
Speaker 8
Well, thank you for the question. I think it goes without saying these are sensitive populations. Insulin formulas are often the sole source of nutrition for our babies. If a company detects a pathogen in an infant formula manufacturing facility, they should be required to notify the FDA immediately, so the FDA can be a partner in understanding what the risks might be. As you said, one of the bills that we're considering today would require immediate notification within 24 hours.
Another bill would permit notification after the company has completed a root-cause investigation, which can take many months. That's a really important distinction. FDA should be alerted right away.
Speaker 19
I agree. They also may not do it as well to the standards that FDA would require. I'm gonna pivot now to food date labeling. I this is a common sense bill that would provide clarity for shoppers, reduce food waste, and help bring down the cost of groceries. And I just wanna say that I strongly support the Food Date Labeling Act, a bipartisan bill led by Representatives Pingree and Newhouse.
This bill establishes a standardized food date labeling system to communicate to consumers when a product's quality will deteriorate or when it is at the end of its shelf life. The only product that the FDA requires an actual date label on is infant formula. For every other food on the market, manufacturers can decide if they want to add a date label and which label to use: use by, sell by, Best Buy, a host of other labels. But there's no real federal standard for these terms. And on top of that, states can establish their own labeling systems, creating this patchwork of definitions and regulations that don't coincide with one another and just confuses families.
So this just makes it harder to know how to understand these labels, whether to trust a label, whether to understand if something's unsafe, or if it just might not taste as good as when it was first made. Mister Manronach, what are some of the downstream effects to customers when it's not clear what these labels mean?
Speaker 5
Well, we've done a lot of work on this particular issue for 14 years. A cross-sectional panel has been working on this with industry consumers and regulators. And this is one that we really do believe some consistency would bring additional consumer protection, and make it clear. In addition, it has the added benefit of reducing food waste from those things that really do not need to be thrown away.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, that yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today. My first question is for Mister Manderdock. Good afternoon, sir. We currently have more than 50 different date label phrases on food products, like sell by, use by, expires on, and others.
From your perspective, what problems does this create for consumers? First question. And do these labels actually mean the same thing across all products?
Speaker 5
Well, first, it is creating a huge amount of confusion with consumers. We have been strongly supportive of moving to consistent methods of identifying them. Ideally, one for quality and one for safety, and using those consistently. Once again, we aren't required to have those, but if you choose to put them on, they should be consistent.
Speaker 13
K. Thank you. Several of the proposals we're discussing today would expand FDA's role in reviewing ingredients under the GRAS framework. What additional authority or resources would the FDA need to take on that work without slowing innovation or creating uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers? Mr. Mander.
Mister Manderlock, that's for you also. Mister Mander. That's for you also, sir. Sorry.
Speaker 5
Okay. Significant. Each review is a very large project, to put it simply. Estimates that I've seen have been between 2.5 and $5,000,000 per item.
Speaker 13
Okay. Thank you. I'll follow up with that with you, sir. As FDA reassesses legacy ingredients, how can Congress help ensure the agency focuses first on substances that pose the greatest potential risk? And that's do you also assume, Mr. Mandarock?
Sorry. This is your last one.
Speaker 5
Okay. Well, we'll try. I think, when we talk about the ones with greatest risk, I think there is a clear list of ideas that I would be starting with. I mean, we've seen those that have been outlawed in other countries. We'd definitely be starting there.
And from there, I think we go through very novel and things that we haven't seen often used in this space. And as they come on board, I'd be focused on that.
Speaker 13
Okay. Thank you very much. You're done. Okay. Mister Carl Leo, sir, next question is for you.
A recent economic analysis found that a growing patchwork of state ingredient labeling laws could increase grocery prices by up to 12% nationwide, effectively raising costs for families at the checkout line.
Speaker 13
Retailer's perspective, how would establishing a single federal ingredient transparency standard help stabilize supply chains and keep groceries more affordable for families and communities like mine in Ohio that depend on a consistent national food distribution network?
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you. So, if when we think about it right now, our supply chain is very efficient. And it goes back to if one item now has to have five, six, seven, eight different labels based on different state laws, it is gonna slow down the efficiency. It is going to raise costs of warehousing, slotting, shipping, and that's what will happen.
Speaker 13
Okay. Alright. Thank you very much for the panel. And, mister chairman, yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize another gentleman from Ohio, Mister Lanzman, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, ranking member, for today's legislative hearing on food regulation and oversight. Obviously, I think this has been said that we all agree that, you know, healthy food is a must, and the FDA is sorry. The Food and Drug Administration's job is one of the most important in the country in terms of keeping Americans safe. There have been cases within this administration. Let me say it this way.
Under this administration, we have seen cases where Congress has provided the FDA with a very important authority to keep people safe. But there has been either the appearance of corruption or abuse of power that has gotten in the way of that authority in making appropriate decisions. So I'm gonna give one example and ask some questions, because it is very concerning to me. The FDA was dealing with this E. Coli outbreak, and multiple state and local health partners and the FDA determined that the outbreak was the result of products that came from a company called Raw Farm.
That was the likely source of the outbreak. And then, for some reason, the FDA did not require a recall on this company. They said it was up to the company if they wanted to recall the products. Secretary Kennedy has a relationship with the CEO of this company and has very publicly supported the products that this company sells. And so there's obviously questions as to whether or not they were treated differently because of this relationship.
Mister Mandarnock, executive director of the association of food and drug officials, your organization represents state and local food regulatory agencies across the country and recently reported on this. Coli outbreak. Three questions. One, what can you share about this outbreak from your reporting?
Speaker 5
I don't know if there's a whole lot more to share than what you just said. I mean, that is really the basic of the situation. And I think we too ask the very same question. Why was the mandatory recall authority not used in this case?
Speaker 20
How was the FDA's response to this outbreak different from similar outbreaks in the past?
Speaker 5
Well, I will say seldom has the agency used mandatory recall for the authority. I believe it's under two times at this point. So it's not very often used, but we have historically not seen them get a voluntary recall from a firm that they really felt needed to do it. So this is unusual.
Speaker 20
What reasoning, if any, did the FDA provide for their different response here? None. None. Does it concern you that this relationship exists between the, you know, secretary of HHS, RFK Junior, this company, and the decision at FDA.
Speaker 5
I really don't have any additional information, so I can't understand the reasoning. It is unusual. I can say that much.
Speaker 8
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the question. It is very troubling when a product clearly meets the legal standard for a recall, severe adverse health consequences, serious adverse health consequences, or death. And people are getting very sick that the FDA is not using this power that you, Congress, gave them 15 years ago.
Simply threatening to order a mandatory recall is usually enough. It did not work in this case. And this is a tailor-made example of when FDA should have used its recall power. So it is very troubling. One of the bills that you'll be considering today would move us in the wrong direction by essentially putting food chemical companies in charge of deciding which food chemicals are safe.
That also doesn't make sense.
Speaker 20
Yeah. Thank you. I've felt for some time now that the biggest issue that we face in this country is the concentration, the extreme and unprecedented concentration of wealth and power. And you see that in this administration, you see it all over the economy where a few people make decisions, and they're all friends with one another. And they do it in the interest of themselves.
And not always, and rarely, quite frankly, in the best interest of the United States and the American people, in large part because they're so far removed from our lives. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 21
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank each one of you for being here today. We appreciate it very much. You know, this is what we're talking about today, is what I refer to as upstream decisions, and it's something that I've tried to do throughout my professional career. Being a pharmacist, a health care professional, I've always stressed just how important well care is and taking care of ourselves. We've always heard that you are what you eat, and this is certainly something that is important.
And we want the correct balance between what we're eating, and we certainly want innovation. We certainly have come a long ways in our food supply chain over the years and improved it tremendously. And so it is a balancing act, if you will, between what we're trying to do here and between making sure that we have children who eat healthy foods. It's the grandfather of eight grandchildren and the father-in-law of three daughters-in-law. I can assure you I get preached at quite often about giving them certain foods.
So rest assured that I'm coming from that perspective as well. But I appreciate the administration's, make America healthy again initiative, and I want y'all to know that. I'm a big advocate for that, and I appreciate what the administration is trying to do and to refocus the conversation in the right direction, and that is upstream on our prevention, particularly on chronic disease and the role that diet and food ingredients play in shaping our long term health, as I say. One area that is especially important is how we evaluate and monitor the food ingredients over time. And today, there are pathways that allow substances in the food supply without consistent federal review or a structured process for reassessment, even as new data on long-term exposure becomes available.
But at the same time, we wanna preserve, as I said earlier, a system that supports innovation, particularly efforts to reformulate products in ways that improve health outcomes. And I'd like to think that we've done that to a great extent. And I hope we're giving ourselves credit that we deserve, that I feel like we deserve. Mister Menonau, let me ask you. As someone who oversees the development and implementation of food safety standards, how should we think about our approach to ingredient review so that it better accounts for cumulative exposure and long-term health impacts while still maintaining a predictable, efficient pathway that encourages innovation and healthier product development?
Speaker 5
Well, I think there are some beginning principles I would just mention when we're thinking a little bit about the grass area. They would say first, the system has clearly gone beyond its original intent. In other words, we're seeing things that have been introduced without notice in the system that were not intended to be, and we're well beyond that. So, with that, I would say we need to modernize the framework for practical pathways, which some of these bills definitely do, and really look for how we can do better at closing this loophole. We can't do it immediately.
It's going to have to be over time and a reasonable approach. And reassessments and regular reviews of the assessments must become part of our routine.
Speaker 21
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Another thing that I'm interested in is legislative proposals, something like the FRESH Act. And that's something that would establish a more structured framework for ingredient transparency and post market review and a public registry, if you will, while also moving toward more consistent national standards.
Mister Colalio, from your retailer perspective, and I was a retailer too. I was an independent retail pharmacist, so I can appreciate the retailer part of it. How important is it to ensure that efforts to bring more ingredient transparency for consumers don't add unnecessary complexity that could disrupt supply chains or slow reformulation toward healthier products.
Speaker 6
Well, I think that it's critically important that we don't do anything to interrupt the sufficient and safe food supply, but it's hard, but we need a safe food supply. And when we talk about, again, the federal government well funded to give that direction to the manufacturers, so it can happen efficiently and effectively. As retailers, we cannot be expected to manage 80,000 items that are in our stores, to try to figure out whether they comply with a state regulation or not. It's just not practical. So I think the more efficient we can do this, more effective, not just efficient, more effective we can do it as efficiently as is necessary.
Speaker 21
That's one of the things I wanted to ask you about is the patchwork of different state regulations. I know that's got to be a challenge for you.
Speaker 6
We, you know, we have a product called the Bruno Passa. It's a manufacturer that we use, a brand. And right now, we estimated that if we were going to look, we have to spend over 100 to $200,000 just to make sure we understand each state's individual food safety law right now in case something changes. You know? And I think that's real, that how do we continue to monitor?
If every state has their own dyspatriques legislation, how do we continue to monitor each state's Great. Plus.
Speaker 21
Well, thank y'all. This is extremely important, and I appreciate all your attention to it. Now yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the general lady of California, Miss Barragan.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Faber, Hispanic women and babies in the United States suffer from higher rates of brain and spine disabilities compared to other populations. These devastating birth defects can cause lifelong disability or even death. But these health conditions can be prevented if Hispanic women eat more nutrient-dense foods, such as food made with folic acid, which is a B vitamin before and during pregnancy.
Would it be helpful for consumers to be able to clearly tell whether a food product contains folic acid based on its packaging?
Speaker 22
And how would we do that? Would they just put the word folic acid on there?
Speaker 8
There are a number of proposals that are the subjects of this hearing that would make our labels clearer. For example, making it clear when foods contain more than 10 milligrams of caffeine, and making consumers aware that 400 milligrams is your daily value. For example, providing more information about folic acid. For example, as the Truth in Labeling Act requires, putting a front of package disclosure on foods so that consumers can, at a glance, identify ultra processed foods that are high in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars.
Speaker 22
Great. Thank you. Mister Mandarnock, during the by-heart infant formula recall, the FDA sent two warning letters to Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, and Target to remove the contaminated formula from their shelves. Stores took up to two weeks to remove the recalled formula off their shelves. What could the FDA have done better?
And do current enforcement measures give the FDA enough authority to ensure immediate compliance in a recall, or does Congress need to straighten them?
Speaker 5
Well, I think one thing they could do is definitely provide those distribution lists to state and local officials early so that they can be seen, where there are problems. And then also having those conversations early, when they begin to see trends within brands. Have those conversations very quickly, and say, hey. We're seeing this product not removed from your brand. What's going on?
We need to work on this immediately. And I think we've seen that happen in isolated circumstances, but it's not a routine part of the process.
Speaker 22
Great. Thank you. Mister Faber, the Trump administration laid off 19% of the FDA's workforce last April, including scientists. How do staff cuts at the FDA make it more difficult for the agency to conduct food safety oversight on products like infant formula when there is a contamination issue?
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question. I think we all want safe, healthy, affordable food, and we were all hopeful that Secretary Kennedy would deliver on his promises to make America's food healthier and make us healthy again. So far, we've not banned a single chemical from our food, and that's in part because we lack the staff capacity to adequately review and act on chemicals of concern. We have organizations like EWG have eight petitions pending at the FDA right now, many of which are urging the FDA to ban chemicals that have been banned elsewhere, and that are linked to cancer. One of those petitions has been pending at the FDA for more than 30 years, even though the National Toxicology Program has said since 1997 that this was a chemical that was reasonably anticipated to cause cancer.
So having more resources is really important for the agency to simply be able to respond to these questions about chemicals that have been banned elsewhere, have been linked to cancer, and yet remain in our food supply.
Speaker 22
So that prompts me to ask you, if you're a new mother with a newborn or a small child in the house, how in the world am I supposed to know when I'm reading a label what has been linked to cancer?
Speaker 8
Yeah. It shouldn't be your job. You shouldn't have to be an amateur toxicologist to know which of the chemicals that are added to food are safe or not. Unfortunately, the vast majority of chemicals that have been added to our food have either never been reviewed for safety by the FDA or, if they have been reviewed, many decades ago and have never been reconsidered. Never have we never asked again, are these chemicals still safe to eat?
Ultimately, we need a properly resourced agency to have the staff and the intellectual know-how to review these chemicals and ask, are they still safe to eat? We faced this challenge in the 1980s with pesticides, and some of you may remember this. We realized we were eating pesticides, especially our kids, and that our kids were more susceptible to the harms that were caused by pesticides, and tens of thousands of pesticides. And we began with a fee-funded program at EPA to methodically look back and ask, are these chemicals still safe to eat? And now we've done that, and we've done it again.
We do it every 15 years. We need to set up the same kind of predictable reassessment program for the other chemicals that we eat when we enjoy our food.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields back. Now recognize the gentle lady from Iowa, Doctor Miller Meeks.
Speaker 23
And thank you very much, mister chairman, and thank the witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee today. I think the legislative proposals and the theme of today's hearing are an area where we all share the same goal, better health for Americans. But the path we choose matters, particularly for affordability, access, and personal freedom. As a physician, I've spent decades counseling patients, yes, even as an ophthalmologist, not just on treatment but on prevention. And increasingly, what we're seeing across the country is that chronic disease is being driven not only by lifestyle choices, sedentary office work, but also by the broader food landscape Americans are navigating every day.
We have seen rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, conditions that are costly, largely preventable, and deeply tied to nutrition. So, as we consider legislative proposals on food regulation and oversight, I think we need to stay grounded in a few principles. First, transparency and science-based standards. Americans deserve clear, accurate information about what they're consuming. Second, personal responsibility and freedom of choice.
We should empower better decisions, not dictate them. Third, support for American agriculture, especially our farmers and producers who are already under significant economic pressure. And fourth, targeted, effective federal oversight, not duplicate or overly burdensome regulation that drives up cost without improving outcomes. Mister Farber, in response to the last question you were asked, it reminded me, aren't there individuals who use nutritional supplements or additives or sleep aids that are not approved by the FDA? They consume them all the time.
Do they not?
Speaker 23
I reclaim my time. That is correct. That is correct. Why I said we should not be dictating to patients or to individuals. Their choices just empower them to make good choices.
Mister Mondranag, in your testimony, you emphasize the importance of clear standards, uniformity, and consumer trust in the marketplace. One concern I hear, especially from producers and retailers, is the risk of a patchwork system. My good friend and colleague, representative Kamak's Fresh and Affordable Foods Act discussion aims to draft aims to improve transparency and affordability in the food system. I would add that fresh is not the only alternative. However, do you believe this discussion draft moves us toward greater national uniformity in how food pricing and labeling are enforced across states?
Speaker 5
I think it's a very good beginning of the discussion. There are many pieces that are good.
Speaker 23
Thank you. Mister Hamilton, in your testimony, you emphasize the importance of clear labeling and greater transparency for consumers when it comes to food products. Included in today's hearing is H.R. 1394, the Codifying Useful Regulatory Definitions or CURD Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation would establish a formal definition of natural cheese to help consumers distinguish between natural and processed products, something that currently lacks a consistent federal standard. From my perspective representing a major agricultural state, which includes dairy, policies like this also help to protect the integrity of products made by American farmers and producers.
Do you see definitional standards like those in the CURD Act as a way to both support domestic agriculture and improve consumer transparency?
Speaker 23
Mister Colalillo, in your testimony, you highlight the importance of maintaining a safe, affordable, and accessible food supply, while also cautioning against policies that may add unnecessary complexity. In your view, what is the most effective way to improve transparency without creating duplicative requirements that increase cost and limit choice?
Speaker 6
In my opinion, it's the FDA being funded and having a science-based approach to what should and should not go into products.
Speaker 23
Thank you. I'm just going to end on something that Mister Faber said, and that was about pesticides. And I recall that The United States banned DDT pesticides, even though someone drank a spoonful of DDT on the floor of Congress. However, we allowed the importation of foods from other countries where DDT was used. So I think consistency and transparency, as well as consumer choice, are extraordinarily important.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Vizy, for his five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually glad that we are here talking about food safety today. Americans really do need to be able to rest easy when it comes to knowing that the food that they eat and that their children consume are healthy for them, and that the drug administration, the FDA, has done the hard work to make sure that that food is safe. Right now, I think that everybody agrees that the process needs some reform. I'm glad that Americans are really thinking more and more about what's in their food, from the chemicals and the additives and packaged foods and the contaminants that may find their way into the food supply.
But I wanna be clear, what is and isn't safe should be based on science and truth. Under the umbrella of Make America Healthy Again, this may not always be the case. And, look, the movement taps into some very legitimate concerns. You're talking to someone that literally has read every Michael Pollan book on food. He's one of my favorite authors.
But sometimes the Maha movement taps into legitimate concerns about our food system, and it often replaces evidence with speculation, and amplifies claims that are not based on science. And just last week, we saw Senate Secretary Kennedy is not concerned with the truth, with science, or with facts. He oftentimes blurs the line between credible science and unfounded claims. And it's our job here in Congress, as coequal branches of government, to make sure that any and all efforts to make our food safer and healthier are grounded in scientific consensus. Now let's take the dyes, for example.
These synthetic food dyes and additives have been a part of the American food chain for decades now. And some food dyes have been shown to pose a risk, while others simply have not. That's why it's so important that we follow the science and where it leads us. And people are oftentimes comparing the US to Europe, and the difference isn't always about the science itself, but about the system. Here in the US, we use a different system. We use a risk-based approach when it comes to evaluating safety based on typical exposure levels.
In Europe, regulators often use a more precautionary approach, restricting substances earlier when there is any uncertainty. And, critically, the US allows companies to self-determine ingredients that are generally recognized as safe without formal FDA review. And in many cases, the FDA isn't even notified. This loophole does not exist in Europe, where additives must be reviewed and approved before entering the food supply. The US has long been criticized for gaps in our food safety framework, and the GRAS pathway is a significant part of that conversation.
And we need to, again, look for ways to strengthen our system. We need to ask ourselves whether it's appropriate for companies to self-affirm safety without independent review, and whether the FDA has the authority and resources it needs to provide meaningful oversight. But most importantly, we should not lose sight of the important scientific rigor. And so I wanted to ask, mister Mandarnak, your testimony touches on the importance of science-based food laws. How can we better ensure that our federal regulation of food and safety is science- and fact-driven?
Speaker 5
Well, I think one of the things that we definitely needed is resources, particularly when it comes to chemicals, evaluations. They are just very expensive to do, and we simply do not have adequate resources to do that work.
Speaker 16
Yeah. Yeah. No. Thank you. Mister Farber, I also wanted to ask you, three of the bills that are subject of today's hearing would allow the FDA to conduct post-market assessments of the chemicals that we're already eating.
What is needed to reconsider the safety of the chemicals and food, including the chemicals we're already eating?
Speaker 8
Yes. Thank you for the question. Let me start by talking about the need for industry revenue. We simply can't begin to reassess the safety of the chemicals that we're eating without resources and some combination of user fees, paid by the food chemical companies whose chemicals are being reviewed, or cost recovery fees paid for by the food companies whose plants are being inspected, or registration fees needs to be applied to this challenge, or we will continue to be eating chemicals that have either never been reviewed for safety or have been reviewed many decades ago. Dyes are a great example of this, Mr. Visi.
In 2021, a comprehensive peer-reviewed study found that some kids can be harmed by these dyes. They can become inattentive or restless. But the FDA had not reviewed the safety of dyes since the sixties, seventies, or eighties, and still has not done so. That's a perfect example of why we need a fully resourced agency to answer these important questions.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. And now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Miss Kammock, for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 24
Excellent. Well, thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us here today. Love the conversation, and I'll just get right to it. American families, we deserve better from our federal food safety system, and we have the opportunity in this committee right now to deliver on it. I think you're gonna see a lot of bipartisan work here, in trying to meet the mark.
So, building on some of the things that have been said here today, we recognize that outdated rules and regulatory gaps have created uncertainty across our food supply. GRAS, or folks back home, it stands for generally recognized as safe. You know, Washington loves its acronyms. And it sounds reassuring, but when notification to the FDA is not even required, that is not a complete safety standard. And I think we all agree on that.
That is a gap that we can close. That is exactly why the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act discussion draft that we are talking about here today is aiming to do just that and more. As a new mom, I will tell you very plainly. I look at the labels. I research ingredients, and I think about what I am putting in front of my daughter.
Moms and dads, we should not have to be professional detectives when it comes to finding healthy and safe foods for our families. And I think most American families, if not all, would agree. We want food that is safe, transparent, and affordable, and that is exactly what this bill is aiming to deliver on. Now I wanna highlight that the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act has not been introduced yet, and it is a discussion draft. But that's not because we are unsure of the problem, but because we want to get the solution right.
That is how important this is. We want industry, we want regulators, stakeholders, and most importantly, families at the table. We want the reforms that come out of this process to be durable, science-based, and worthy of bipartisan support. That is how good policy gets made, and how it stays made. This bill is about consistency, and right now, we know that there is a patchwork of states that are stepping up to fill in the gaps where, honestly, the federal government has fallen short.
But the result is a patchwork of differing requirements that creates real costs for manufacturers, for retailers, and ultimately for families. A strong, unified national framework protects consumers, keeps healthy foods affordable, and gives industry clear, predictable standards to operate under. And that, in my mind, is a win for everyone. This also includes very important steps forward on infant and toddler food safety, contaminant testing, and national consistency, so that every American, regardless of ZIP code, can have confidence in the safety of what is on the store shelves. Again, as a new mom, this is a very real issue that I have dealt with personally.
I have seen recalled formula sitting on my counter, a reality that many moms and dads are facing around the country, and one I take very personally. So I appreciate the conversation today surrounding the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act. I think this is a very important step that we can take, as I said, in a bipartisan manner. I'd be remiss if I did not mention the Defending Domestic Orange Juice Production Act. You know, Florida growers and producers have waited long enough, and I look forward to finally closing the book on that one.
My goodness. So at the end of the day, just to put a button on it, Americans, we want a food system that is modernized, reflects science, protects our families, and keeps food affordable. As a legislator and a mom, I'm just gonna say it plainly. It's time that we make these common-sense reforms, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We are ready to get to work and have the serious conversations to get this right.
So I'm gonna jump right into my questions. I'm just gonna call you Joe because I'm gonna mess up your last name anyway. So, Joe, your family built something real. You guys were a mom-and-pop operation. You've scaled to a massive operation.
So you've seen this industry inside and out. From your perspective and your customer's perspective, when a customer goes into the store and picks something up off the shelf, how important is it to them and to you that what they're buying is held to one clear science-based standard regardless of where they live or where that product was made?
Speaker 6
It's very important because I think we as a country and us as retailers have a responsibility to provide safe food to our consumers.
Speaker 24
And as more states pursue their own ingredient and labeling requirements, are you seeing the cost and complexity that comes with navigating those different rules? We will see the cost.
Speaker 6
Well, earlier today, I talked about if half of our products that we carry had to have nine different slots because nine different states chose different product specifications. Our cost increase would be about 1 and a half billion dollars just to bring more warehousing to slot all those items.
Speaker 24
1 and a half billion dollars just for your operation. And, of course, you guys can't absorb that cost, so that gets passed to consumers. Correct? Most probable, yes. So we're talking about a well-intentioned effort really costing consumers at the end of the day.
Speaker 24
Yeah. I think we have a real problem, and I think the Fresh and Affordable Foods Act can deliver the solution. So my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
General lady yields back. Now recognizes the general lady from Texas, Miss Fletcher, for her five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 25
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. During this hearing, I've heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle express to everyone here how important food safety is to the health of all Americans and how critical the FDA is in promoting a healthy food system. And I agree. I absolutely agree the work the FDA does is essential to public health, and that is why it is critical that we ensure the agency has the proper tools to do its work. And while many of the bills that we're discussing today are important for ensuring that the FDA is able to protect the safety of our food system, I find it not only ironic but distressing to be discussing the importance of the FDA while the Trump administration has spent the last year cutting staff at the FDA that does this work.
And this congress has done nothing to prevent it. You know, once again, I feel like a broken record. But in the past year, the FDA has lost more than 4,000 employees between the Trump administration's layoffs and other resignations caused by the actions of the administration. And many of the employees who were fired or who resigned were staff who were responsible for overseeing food safety, including the deputy commissioner for human foods, James Jones, who resigned because of mass layoffs at the FDA. So the experts have warned us that these chaotic staffing cuts are a direct threat to the safety of our food system.
And we should have bipartisan agreement on that too. Everybody in here is talking about how important it is that we make sure the system works. Well, the system doesn't work if you take out all the people who do the work. And so we cannot have a safe and healthy food system if there isn't enough staff at FDA to ensure that the agency could perform its essential function of regulating our food supply. And so while many of these bills are important, I am concerned that even if we pass them, even if they become law, the programs won't be executed because of the drastic staffing cuts at FDA.
So once again, we're hearing a lot in this hearing about making America healthy again, but I don't see how firing the people responsible for ensuring that our food is safe makes Americans healthier. So instead, I think that we really need to focus on what this Congress can do to check the actions of the administration that are undermining food safety and the health of all Americans. And I wanna direct a couple of questions to you, mister Faber, about can you just talk about how the staffing cuts at the FDA have impacted the FDA's ability to regulate our food?
Speaker 8
Yeah. Before January 20, the FDA was not reviewing new food chemicals, was not reviewing the chemicals we're already eating. And now since we've laid off 20% of the workforce, there are even fewer people to respond to petitions to ban chemicals linked to cancer. So it's no wonder that three states, West Virginia, Arkansas, and California, have stepped forward to ban 11 chemicals that are known hazards to our health, that have been banned elsewhere. And as we've talked about earlier, have already been removed from the wholesome pantry brands that Wakefern and Mister Kalillo's grocery store offer. We know that companies can remove those chemicals without increasing food prices because they do so in all the other countries, including Canada, where they sell the nearly identical foods we love, just without the chemicals we hate.
So it's really important that the FDA has the resources to do its job. That is not the case today. Until then, it's really important that we preserve the power of states to protect us from these dangerous chemicals.
Speaker 25
Thank you so much, Mr. Faber. And I wanna follow-up on that with another point, which is, while today's hearing is focused on the FDA's work in food regulation, I have also been concerned about reports that have come up, that we've heard, that the FDA, not only the number of staff, but the integrity of the staff and the work that they're doing, be protected as well. And I know that I'm hearing about folks at FDA facing political pressure for drug approvals, and I think we on this committee need to be really attuned to that. That is absolutely unacceptable. And so we need to make sure that is eliminated.
With the few seconds I have left, I'm not gonna ask a new question. But I do wanna say again, I'm so glad we're having this hearing on food safety. But another area of safety that's largely overlooked is personal care items and cosmetics, which most people use every day and assume are safe. And reports have shown that many of these products contain hazardous chemicals that are harmful to our health. And to date, the FDA has only banned or restricted 11 of these hazardous chemicals.
So this Congress and the two previous Congresses, I have worked with Congresswoman Tchaikowski and introduced the Toxic Free Beauty Act to expand the list of prohibited chemicals in personal care items and cosmetics. Many of them are already banned in some states and in other countries because of the potential harm, but the FDA hasn't been able to keep pace with those countries or states. And it is my hope, mister chairman, that we can have a legislative hearing and focus on the safety of personal care items and cosmetics included in the Toxic Free Beauty Act, and expand this conversation to talk about not only what we put in our bodies, but what we put on our bodies. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 15
Thank you, chairman. Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting hearings we've had this year. Mister Mandronak, I believe in order to have a safe food supply, there must be a robust collaboration between local, state, and federal entities. When I was an Ohio senator, I was impressed by how state regulators ran these such programs. My bipartisan bill, H.R. 8430, would ensure that HHS shares unredacted food safety information with local and state governments.
H R 84 30 will do the following. This bill will allow the FDA to share information identifying recipients of recalled foods during a food safety incident. I've witnessed this personally in my family business for years. This bill also allows FDA to share shipping and distribution information related to recalled food products. Now that's crucial, because time is of the essence when you're doing that.
And this bill also requires receiving agencies to keep their information confidential, and that it can be shared within the industry. So starting off here, what are your thoughts on this bill, and where do you think it could go?
Speaker 5
Well, I think this bill is a definite improvement in the information sharing system and makes this system more efficient and allows us to be better able to respond to outbreaks, recalls, and also consumer complaints, which is included in this. I'll give you a real-world example. One of our states had a consumer complaint that the FDA received. FDA sent the complaint to them, redacted to the point where it said a grocery store, some, this grocery store has something of a problem somewhere. That was not helpful.
That was not what the consumer expected, and this bill solves that problem.
Speaker 15
Well, and to go deeper into what you just said, as far as the grocery store aspect of it, it allows them to move surgically where they're able to say, hey. If there's a lettuce recalled and the lettuce is from Salinas, California, and you're getting your lettuce from Arizona, you could basically assure the people that your product is okay. And if you're on the other side and you actually have a contaminated product, you can isolate it. You give a full credit. You could re ensure your customers that the relationship between the actual retailer and their customer, which is a relationship, is secure, it's honest, it's transparent.
I think the idea that the federal government and that the state and the local aren't talking is absurd. And I mean, I think you would probably agree we need to get there quickly.
Speaker 5
Absolutely. And I'd also say in Ohio, with the 115 local agencies that the state is relying on to help effectuate those recalls, that communication and being able to communicate with them is essential.
Speaker 15
Well, my office would welcome any input you could put to help this bill, this bipartisan bill, move forward. And with that, chairman, I yield my time.
Speaker 9
Gentleman yields back. And now I recognize mister Carter for his five minutes questions.
Speaker 26
Thank you, madam chair. The FDA has long struggled to recruit and retain staff, particularly the food and drug inspectors who are on the front lines keeping our food supply safe. When those employees leave, they're not easily or quickly replaced. That's not my assessment. That's not my assessment.
It's from the Government Accountability Office. Experts are raising serious concerns about federal agencies' ability to monitor pathogens, oversee food safety, and respond effectively to outbreaks of illness. A depleted FDA workforce means less protection for our public. Mister Faber, what staffing issues have you seen at the FDA?
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, this current administration reduced the number of staff by 20%, including many people who provide really critical food safety support functions, not necessarily inspectors, but many of the people who work directly with inspectors to make sure that they're successful. We've also not only lost that capacity, we've also failed to properly train our inspectors to look for the root causes of many of these foodborne outbreaks. Using a checklist approach as we did before the enactment of FSMA fifteen years ago should no longer be the case. Unfortunately, that too often is the case.
Speaker 8
Well, instead of looking across the plant and asking how might a pathogen find its way into our food, we're missing the, ultimately, the places, the critical control points that might ultimately contribute to a foodborne outbreak. We not only need to invest in staff so they stay for the long run, we need to make sure that they're properly trained to look for the sources of
Speaker 26
Would you agree that this is a direct conflict of the whole Make America Healthy? Well, I So Mantra.
Speaker 8
It certainly, so far, the administration has not made us healthier, in particular by cutting programs that help us get access to healthy foods, by cutting programs that support farmers and farmers' markets. So certainly not made us safer by cutting critical food safety staff as well.
Speaker 26
Thank you. That's exactly why I joined with my colleagues, Mike Ezel of Mississippi and Julia Letlow of Louisiana, to introduce HR 3324, the safer shrimp imports act, which this committee is reviewing today. When the FDA is stretched, then we need smarter safeguards at our ports of entry. This bill is straightforward. If a country wants access to American consumers, its government must either have an inspection agreement with the FDA or operate a food safety system that meets our standards.
It's about protecting American consumers and ensuring fair playing fields for our rule-abiding fishermen who go out, play by the rules, and then oftentimes are undercut by these foreign cargo that comes in, that's not properly tested. Our imports of catfish, whitefish, or subdued USDA equivalency requirements, though it is their equivalency standards of the USDA administered preapproved process before authorizing companies to ship, is not always equal to ours. In contrast, no prior approval is required by the FDA for most seafood. Last year, the United States imported shrimp from 46 countries. Hundreds of countries' companies currently export shrimp here, with new companies popping up regularly every day.
Under this approach, the burden is on the FDA to find shipments of unsafe shrimp imports and stop them at the border. Mister Mandanat, imported shrimp accounts for roughly 90% of the shrimp consumed in the United States, much of which comes from countries with weak food safety standards and inadequate oversight of contaminants, including antibiotics, pesticides, and bacteria. In your opinion, could standardized equivalence mechanisms similar to what we have for catfish help us in preventing unself shrimp from getting onto our kitchen tables? Absolutely. And so when you're undercut with staff, when you don't have enough resources, when we continue to see the cuts, does that undermine the very efforts that we are working on in a bipartisan way?
This measure that I'm speaking of is, in fact, a bipartisan measure, recognizing that the fishermen, the oystermen, the shrimpers in Louisiana provide seafood, fresh seafood, well-tested seafood to people all over the country. This should not have to be made to compete with people who sell inferior products at a cheaper rate, slipping through our ports.
Speaker 5
I agree the American producers should be on an equal playing field with the foreign producers. And equivalency is one option and is definitely something that should be explored.
Speaker 9
Gentlemen, yields back, and I recognize Representative Halchens for her five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 27
Thank you, madam chair. The FDA's human foods program plays a critical role in ensuring that our food supply is safe, properly labeled, and grounded in science-based standards that consumers and producers can trust. The Trump administration has been a leader on these issues through the Make America Healthy Again initiative, focusing on reducing chronic disease, improving food transparency, and addressing concerns around petroleum-based food dyes and harmful additives. My home state of Indiana is already leading on many of these issues through Governor Braun's Make Indiana Healthy Again initiative, particularly on food dyes and nutrition reform, chronic disease prevention, and expanding direct-to-consumer food access. These proposals are what many Hoosier families have been asking for: greater confidence that the foods they buy, especially for their children, is safe, transparent, and held to high standards.
The question before Congress today is, how do we build a federal framework that supports healthier families without creating confusion, higher costs, and regulatory chaos? We want strong consumer protections, but we also need consistency for farmers, for manufacturers, and for the retailers who feed our communities every day. My question is for mister Mondernock. As you know, states can generally be more nimble than the federal government, especially when it comes to consumer protection. As I've mentioned, Indiana has already taken action through the Make America or Make Indiana Healthy Again initiative to review petroleum-based food dyes and harmful additives in the foods that are marketed to our children.
We're seeing a growing movement at both the state and the federal level on this issue. From your perspective, how should Congress balance stronger federal standards on food dyes with the need for states like Indiana to continue leading on both innovation and consumer protection?
Speaker 5
Well, I think I talked a little bit about this earlier. When it comes to looking at this, I think you need to carefully look. Is there really a consensus in the area? Are we to the point where there is a clear national standard? Are there resources available at the federal government to go ahead and make those changes, and to enforce those and accept the responsibility for those changes?
And then lastly, we should always be looking to see, does this make sense to be a federal issue, or is this inherently local?
Speaker 27
I appreciate that very much. And on the flip side, mister Mondernock, as more states are moving independently on some of these ingredient bans, labeling rules, food additive restrictions, grocers and food producers are increasingly facing what we often call the 50-state compliance problem. For retailers, manufacturers who are serving consumers across state lines, how significant is that burden? And should Congress step in to provide some clearer federal preemption where the FDA has already acted?
Speaker 5
Well, if the current laws passed, we're looking at three states, and frankly, they're consistent. So I don't think there's a huge burden at this point, and one could adopt a very quick labeling strategy that does meet those requirements. But if that changes, there's a different answer to the question.
Speaker 27
So the work that we're discussing here today, trying to figure out how we balance the need for some strict federal standards with the nimbleness that states can provide, especially in response to a consumer protection issue. What advice do you have for the committee as we're considering that under this framework?
Speaker 5
Well, I think the key is getting to that consensus level. If we get to where we all have a relatively standard list of chemicals that we would like to see banned, I think we get there. But, if we're not there yet, then we're probably not at the time to make the change.
Speaker 27
Thank you. And is there anyone else on the committee who would like to make comments to that?
Speaker 8
Yes. Like to say, thank you. I'd like to thank Indiana for your leadership. I've worked with delegate Julie McGuire on her legislation to address dyes and other chemicals in Indiana's school foods. And, Indiana's a great example where delegate McGuire looked to other states, West Virginia, Arkansas, and California, that have already taken action and asked, can we take action on the same chemicals in our state? As Mister Mondonac said, so far, there isn't a patchwork quilt.
Many of you are state legislators. State legislators are talking to each other. You're identifying these ingredients of concern. You're asking what other countries have done, and you're, in the absence of FDA leadership, taking action to protect your consumers, especially as Delegate McGuire has in school foods. So it's very important until we have a robust funded FDA with deadlines and access to information and wait for the public to have it say, it's really important for folks like Delegate McGuire to continue to be able to protect Indiana's consumers.
Speaker 27
I appreciate you. You're referencing my former colleague, Representative Julie McGuire. She, we're very proud of her and the action that she has taken in Indiana to address this very important issue. Thank you for the testimony today. I appreciate the engagement on these important issues.
I look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders and with the committee moving forward. I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I get started with my line of questioning, I would like to offer my strong support for the Codifying Useful Regulatory Definitions Act, the CURD Act, sponsored by the very persuasive congressman from Wisconsin, Brian Style. I think it's far time that we have real definitions on the books that would define natural cheese as a product, and it'll give great definition to the entire cheese industry. We have a thriving cheese manufacturing in the state of New York, and I just wanted to express my strong support for that legislation. And, hopefully, that moves forward very soon.
Into my line of questioning. For nearly thirty years, dietary supplements have been regulated under a single science-based national framework led by the FDA, giving consumers confidence that products are safe and properly labeled and consistently regulated across the country. But in recent years, as we've seen in many different industries, states are moving away from that model, imposing their own arduous requirements and restrictions often beyond what the FDA has already reviewed and determined to be safe. And my state of New York often does this, and it leads to higher costs and fewer choices with consumers. When states override science-based FDA determination, you end up in a situation where the same product is treated as safe in one state but suspect in another state just by crossing a state line.
And it that's regulation for regulation's sake. That doesn't make any sense for businesses or the people that they serve, and that's why I've introduced HR 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, to reaffirm that we should have one clear science-based national standard, not a patchwork of conflicting state rules, and I'm appreciative that it's included in today's legislative hearing. And with that, mister Kalalilil, you've described a state-by-state patchwork system as not viable. Can you walk us through, in practical terms, what that looks like for a grocery retailer managing inventory, labeling, and compliance across multiple states and categories of products like dietary supplements?
Speaker 6
Well, I think it starts with the consumer confusion, as you just talked about, because as consumers are shopping in two different states and cross-shop, it just doesn't create a source of truth that they can rely on. So when every state does it versus the federal government, I think it starts there. But when you go back to the process, it starts with the manufacturers. And if they have to turn one item into 10 items, they don't have to go to 50. It just creates problems with complexity with manufacturing where there's line changes for different labels.
It creates storage where they have to now slot 9 different items versus one. It creates distribution where the distribution costs are increased. It comes down to the wholesalers or retailers who now have to make more room to ship to multiple states. I gave an example of how currently we have 51,000 items. We have 4,000,000 square feet of warehouse space.
If only half of those items had to go to nine different states, or nine different states had nine different laws, it would increase our warehouse space to over 8,000,000 square footage. We'd have to expand that at a cost of about 1 billion and a half dollars.
Speaker 28
That's exactly the problem we're trying to address with my legislation, H.R. 7366. At what point does that level of fragmentation force retailers or manufacturers to stop carrying certain products or limit what can be sold?
Speaker 6
Well, part of this becomes a cost issue. And can the retailers or the manufacturers afford to have those additional costs in their facilities as well? And it depends on the size of the facilities. If we couldn't afford to put a 4,000,000 square footage of warehouse, we'd have to make choices of what items to discontinue in order to commit a certain supply.
Speaker 28
Yeah. And I think that gets at the heart of this because at the end of the day, those decisions directly impact consumer choices and affordability. And by restoring regulatory consistency, my legislation protects consumers from confusing and mislabeling of warnings, reduces unnecessary compliance costs, and allows small retailers and manufacturers and fitness centers and distributors to operate under one clear national standard. I appreciate your testimony today. It's very helpful to hear how this plays out in practice, and I wanna thank the chairman for including HR 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, in today's legislative hearing.
Look forward to working with the committee to get this over the finish line, and I yield back, mister chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back now. I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for five minutes.
Speaker 29
Thank you, chairman. I wanna start by thanking you and the ranking member, as well as committee staff, for including our bill, the Sarah Katz Caffeine Safety Act, as part of today's hearing. I'm thankful to be taking the next step on a journey that started two years ago when I met Jill and Michael Katz in our district office in New Jersey, to talk about their daughter, Sarah. Five years old, Sarah was diagnosed with a heart condition known as long QT. Her condition was carefully monitored by her cardiologist and well managed with medications.
Sarah was always conscientious about her condition and avoided anything with high levels of caffeine, sugar, and other stimulants. Sarah was a junior at the University of Pennsylvania when she tragically passed away after going into cardiac arrest. She was 21 years old. On the day of her passing, she consumed a drink from a national fast-food chain after being misled about the contents of the drink. As it turned out, the drink had a high amount of caffeine in it, close to the FDA daily recommended limit for healthy adults.
But the drink was marketed to be plant-based and clean, like it was an electrolyte drink. Fifty years ago, caffeine was determined to be generally recognized as safe, but a lot has changed in the past 50 years. The way Americans consume caffeinated beverages has grown dramatically, and the energy drinks that are on the market today are quite different from what they were 50 years ago. So just for the entire panel, would you agree that what we've seen is a growth in the caffeinated beverage market over the past couple of years? Just yes or no?
Speaker 29
I appreciate it. I can tell you as a consumer, it's fundamentally changed, because Americans used to drink mostly coffee and tea. And when Red Bull first came out, there was only a small handful of companies and types of energy drinks on the market, most with a similar caffeine content as coffee. But today, it seems like a new energy drink hits the market every month, and they're much stronger than coffee. Many of these beverages also are marketed to younger Americans in bright, colorful cans, and promoted by influencers on popular social media apps and video games.
Others are marketed as health drinks, and their consumers may not even realize they have caffeine in them. And it's not just canned energy drinks you can buy in stores. They're also at chain restaurants. Mister Faber, are regulations for labeling caffeinated beverages required by law, or are they voluntary? They're voluntary.
And how caffeine is regulated depends on how a company chooses to market it. So a beverage that is marketed as a dietary supplement would have a different set of regulations than a beverage that is marketed as an energy drink or a food item. Is that accurate?
Speaker 29
So even if a beverage that is marketed as a dietary supplement has the same amount of caffeine in it as a beverage that is marketed as an energy drink or food, it would still have different regulatory guidelines. What are the benefits of a transparent labeling system for caffeinated beverages, whether they are regulated as a dietary supplement or food?
Speaker 8
Well, first and foremost, people who are going to restaurants probably don't stop to think whether caffeine has been added to their beverages. So having a disclosure or a warning, especially if it has a high amount of caffeine, is very important. But I would wager that most of us couldn't tell you what the daily value is for caffeine, and most of us are probably unaware that a single serving of most energy drinks would exceed that daily value of caffeine.
Speaker 29
Yeah. And I appreciate that. And part of what we wanna do under this bill is create more awareness and a campaign to give people that information. And so the bill at hand is the Sarah Cats' Caffeine Safety Act. It aims to address inconsistencies and labeling requirements and regulations for caffeinated beverages.
Our bill would require restaurants to disclose if a product has more than 150 milligrams of caffeine on menus and menu boards, and require companies to include the amount of caffeine or other stimulants in a product. Our bill also directs the FDA to study and update any relevant regulations to better protect vulnerable populations. I wanna be clear. This bill is not intended to ban caffeinated beverages or even push people away from them. I assure you I got through law school with heavily caffeinated beverages.
This bill is about transparency, so people know what they're putting into their bodies, something that I think we all agree upon. The caffeinated beverage industry has changed dramatically, and it is time that we take another look at the way caffeine is labeled on food packaging and in restaurants, and the ways it impacts vulnerable populations, including our kids. Something that I appreciate the committee's attention to, appreciate the opportunity to bring here today, and appreciate all of the panelists for their expertise. I yield back.
Speaker 1
you. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. That concludes all of our members asking questions today. So I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing document list.
Without objection, so ordered. I would like to thank all of our witnesses again for being here. You members may have additional written questions. I remind members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to respond to those written questions promptly. Members should submit their questions by the close of business on Wednesday, May 13.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.