A Plan To Provide Americans With Healthy and Safe Food, Drinking Water, and Consumer Products

Americans are clamoring for healthy and safe food, water, and other products to wear and use: A recent poll found that 80 percent of respondents prefer foods made with “simple, recognizable ingredients” over foods containing “artificial or unfamiliar ingredients.”¹ In another poll, the majority of respondents expressed concern about exposure to chemicals in drinking water, food, food packaging, baby products, children’s toys, cosmetics, and personal care products.² The food Americans eat, the water they drink, and the products they use affect health in various ways, with poor diets and nutrition, foodborne illnesses, and toxic chemicals contributing to disease, disability, and death. Yet federal regulatory gaps, corporate influence, and weak oversight have put Americans’ health at risk by allowing harmful chemicals and unsafe ingredients to enter the food system, drinking water, and consumer products. Furthermore, these risks are not evenly distributed, as long-standing inequities shape exposure to unsafe products and limit access to healthier, affordable options. At the same time, current policies and regulations fail to address underlying drivers of harm such as the widespread availability of ultra-processed foods, inadequate premarket safety reviews, and lack of corporate accountability.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative promised aggressive action on food safety.³ But time and time again this administration has made decisions that undermine public health.⁴ However, there is broad bipartisan agreement and public support on the need for stronger safeguards.⁵ Americans want the federal government to do more to ensure the safety of food and consumer products, improve transparency, and reduce exposure to chemicals.

The Center for American Progress recently released a report that proposed an independent preventive health commission, fast-track reviews of pesticides and chemicals in food and everyday products, warning labels on the front of packaged food and beverages, and subsidizing fruits and vegetables as much as other food crops.⁶ This report provides a more comprehensive review of these issues and additional proposals, particularly in the areas of foodborne illness, drinking water, and consumer products, and describes unequal exposures to risk.

The report first documents how the production, regulation, and marketing of food and other consumer products compromise the health and safety of Americans. It then describes how the Trump administration’s antiregulatory agenda has reversed safe drinking water standards and enabled corporate polluters to contaminate products; enacted confusing, misleading, and harmful policies that fail to address primary factors that contribute to food intake; and gutted programs that protect Americans from unsafe personal care and everyday consumer products.

Finally, the report provides specific recommendations that can reduce harm and improve public health and well-being within the areas described in the text box below.

Poor diet and nutrition is considered a primary driver of poor health and a leading cause of chronic disease, including heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, and some types of cancer.⁷ Childhood and adolescent obesity, developmental delays, and other acute and chronic diseases related to unhealthy and unsafe food affect health, economic productivity, school performance and quality of life.⁸ Ultra-processed foods, which account for 70 percent of packaged foods and beverages in the U.S. food supply, are considered a leading cause of diet-related chronic disease and have been linked to increased risk of heart, kidney, and liver diseases as well as cancer; diabetes; depression; stroke; and cognitive decline.⁹ Limited access to affordable, healthy foods, combined with aggressive marketing of unhealthy and ultra-processed foods, disproportionately affects people with low incomes and limited resources and contributes to long-standing inequities.¹⁰ These concerns are reflected in recent public polling: Almost 9 in 10 Americans believe the government should improve the food supply through updated user-friendly nutritional guidelines, better food labeling that discloses ingredients and additives, and reductions in pesticide exposure.¹¹

In response to global concern about growing harmful chemical exposure, in December 2025 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution establishing the first United Nations Principles for Consumer Product Safety.¹² Among its provisions, the resolution affirms “the right of all consumers to have access to safe products and the need to provide consumers […] with a high level of protection against unsafe products both online and offline.” The resolution demonstrates broad global support for consumer products that do not pose an unreasonable risk to consumer health and safety.

Toxic chemicals from industrial activities such as the oil, gas, and chemical sectors can contaminate nearby lands and waters. Consuming food and drinking water supplied from these lands and waters can lead to lifelong endocrine, neurodevelopmental, and metabolic harm, with health risks particularly pronounced during early childhood.¹³

Four groups of toxic chemicals in the global food system—phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—are linked to health problems that may result in disease, lost productivity due to disability, and early death and are estimated to cost as much as $2.2 trillion per year globally.¹⁴ PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are commonly known as “forever chemicals” because they are difficult to break down and last in the environment for a long time.¹⁵ According to test data from the Environmental Protection Agency, 176 million people in the United States drink tap water that has tested positive for PFAS.¹⁶ Exposure to PFAS above certain levels has been associated with digestive, endocrine, respiratory, and mouth and throat cancers; liver damage; thyroid disease; adverse fertility and pregnancy outcomes; higher risk of kidney and testicular cancers; and developmental delays in children.¹⁷

Beyond food and water, many consumer products—including nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, cosmetics, and dietary supplements—may be contaminated with PFAS. Many frequently used consumer products, such as furniture, toys, and food packaging, contain chemicals that have health, environmental, and economic costs.¹⁸ Formaldehyde, which is commonly found in furniture, building materials, and household items, has been linked to respiratory issues and cancers, while phthalates used in plastics, packaging, cosmetics, and children’s products are associated with endocrine disruption and other harms.¹⁹ At the same time, flame retardants used in furniture and electronics have raised concerns among scientists and experts because of their persistence in the environment and their potential effects on hormone regulation and neurodevelopment.²⁰

Heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury occur both naturally and due to industrial pollution from mining, coal-fired power plants, the oil and gas industry, and chemical manufacturing.²¹ Along with pesticides and fertilizers, heavy metals pollute the water and soil that plants absorb while they grow, ending up in the food supply and in cosmetics and dietary supplements.²²

Exposure to heavy metals causes significant, irreparable harm to the development of infants and young children, as well as longer-term impairment that compromises IQ, educational attainment, adult earnings, and adult health.²³ Many chemicals allowed in food sold in the United States are likely harmful, with risks of increasing the likelihood of diseases such as cancer, developmental harm to children, hormone disruption, and other health threats.²⁴

Moreover, researchers and public health agencies have identified hundreds of chemicals in consumer products that may threaten the health of infants and children, including research finding that phthalates are present in a range of popular children’s foods.²⁵ One study found that 95 percent of tested baby foods contained toxic chemicals and that repeated, cumulative exposure poses increasing risks to children’s health.²⁶ Chemical contaminants—including traces of pesticides, antimicrobials, and additives used in plastics and personal care products such as those used for grooming and hygiene—have even been found in human breast milk.²⁷ A University of Arizona study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire found that drinking well water downhill from a PFAS-contaminated site was tied to an increase of 191 percent in infant mortality, 20 percent in preterm birth, and 43 percent in low-weight birth.²⁸ Another study estimated that the adverse health effects of just three toxic chemicals commonly found in plastics—bisphenol A (BPA), a phthalate known as DEHP, and flame retardants known as PBDE—cost 38 countries $1.5 trillion in a single year, due to premature deaths, chronic diseases, and reduced cognitive functioning.²⁹

The Trump administration, which hired ex-industry leaders from chemical and agricultural trade groups into top positions at the EPA, is also moving to deregulate pesticides.³⁰ In November 2025 the EPA approved new pesticides that contain PFAS for agricultural use.³¹ And although health and environmental advocates, supporters of the MAHA movement, and two-thirds of Americans who were polled by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania have expressed concerns, President Trump issued an executive order in February 2026 to protect production of glyphosate-based herbicides, including the weedkiller commonly sold as Roundup, and provide protections from lawsuits for those who produce it.³² Glyphosate has been targeted in thousands of lawsuits and has been found to cause cancer in rats at doses considered safe.³³ The order contradicts the administration’s own MAHA commission report that singled out glyphosate as potentially harmful to children.³⁴

In June 2026, just days after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Monsanto, maker of Roundup, that significantly limited Americans’ legal right to hold pesticide companies accountable for health harms related to their products, the EPA approved three more pesticides: diflufenican, epyrifenacil, and trifludimoxazin.³⁵ Each of these chemicals meets the international definition of PFAS.³⁶ These three chemicals are now approved for use on a variety of products, including corn and soybeans—two of the most heavily grown crops in the United States. At the same time, the EPA also approved other high-risk pesticides, including chlormequat, despite extensive scientific evidence showing that exposure can reduce fertility and harm fetal development at doses lower than currently allowed.³⁷

Outbreaks of foodborne illnesses caused by bacteria, parasites, or other microbiological pathogens are increasing.³⁸ From May to August 2026, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported more than 18,445 laboratory-confirmed cases of cyclosporiasis, a gastrointestinal illness, including 990 hospitalizations and two deaths. For comparison, 1,180 cases were reported between May 1 and August 31 of 2025.³⁹ In late 2025, an infant botulism outbreak with 51 cases across 19 states was linked to infant formula.⁴⁰ It is the first time a formula product in the United States has been linked to infant botulism, which can be life-threatening for infants.⁴¹ The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC, in collaboration with state and local partners, have investigated the outbreak and issued warnings. The FDA conducted sampling and risk assessment, issued a public warning, and recommended a voluntary recall of the product.⁴²

Yet through DOGE cuts, the Trump administration has advanced its deregulatory agenda and decimated the agencies responsible for protecting the American food supply. The federal government estimates that every year 1 in 6 Americans gets sick from contaminated food, resulting in an estimated 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths each year.⁴³ Although the number of domestic food inspections has remained steady since the DOGE cuts, foreign products, which include most seafood and more than half of the fresh fruit consumed in the United States, are increasingly being linked to foodborne illness outbreaks.⁴⁴ Cuts to FDA staff who support inspectors have led to a decline in inspections of foreign food producers, which make up 60 percent of the facilities that the FDA regulates. With the exception of the pandemic, inspections have fallen to the lowest levels since 2011, when Congress gave the FDA new authority to hold foreign food producers to domestic food safety standards.⁴⁵ Foreign food safety inspections have fallen by 29 percent since 2024.⁴⁶ Taylor Farms de Mexico, which has been linked to the cyclospora outbreak, had not been inspected by the FDA for seven years.⁴⁷ In 2025 the Trump administration also delayed a provision of the law that would require restaurants and grocers to provide the FDA with details about their suppliers within 24 hours of an outbreak, which is important to identify outbreak sources and remove contaminated products from use.⁴⁸ The Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet)—a partnership of CDC, FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and 10 states that actively monitors foodborne illness—has reportedly been scaled back due to lack of funding and now tracks only two of the previously tracked eight pathogens; cyclospora is among the pathogens no longer tracked.⁴⁹

According to the CDC, salmonella is the leading cause of foodborne illness-related deaths in the United States, with contaminated chicken the leading cause of salmonella infections.⁵⁰ Yet in a move to protect industry at the expense of Americans’ health, in April 2025, the Trump administration withdrew a proposal that would have required poultry companies to maintain limits on salmonella bacteria and to conduct testing for certain strains.⁵¹ According to reports, Pilgrim’s Pride, a large poultry producer, was the largest donor to President Trump’s inaugural committee.⁵² Provisions of the federal fiscal year 2026 appropriations law go further, eliminating draft rules designed to prevent food contamination and foodborne illnesses.⁵³

Most Americans regularly consume or use products that are generally not subject to routine premarket approval or comprehensive safety review before becoming available to consumers. In particular, dietary supplements and cosmetics operate under a regulatory model that relies on postmarket enforcement.⁵⁴ Although they are widely marketed and used (and therefore perceived as safe), most do not undergo substantial premarket review by their respective governing agency.⁵⁵ Some of these products have been found to disregard consumer safety or cause harm, sometimes in ways that outweigh their claimed benefits.⁵⁶ In some cases, research has found that dietary supplements contain undisclosed pharmaceutical ingredients, unsafe levels of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium, or inaccurate dosages that differ from what is listed on product labels.⁵⁷ In those cases, regulators have intervened only after consumers have been harmed.⁵⁸

Dietary supplement use is especially widespread, with 4 in 5 American adults (81 percent) having used a supplement at some point, and more than half (58 percent) reporting using a dietary supplement within the past 30 days in 2017-2018.⁵⁹ Use is even higher among women (63.8 percent) than men (50.8 percent).⁶⁰ When more than half of the adult population consumes products that are poorly regulated and reviewed before entering the market, even low rates of exposure to unsafe ingredients, mislabeling, or excessive dosages can translate into poor health outcomes for millions of people.

For example, peptide injections are increasingly marketed online and promoted for muscle growth, fat loss, anti-aging, and other purported benefits despite limited evidence of their effectiveness or long-term safety.⁶¹ Many peptide supplements are not FDA approved or subject to the same oversight as approved medications,⁶² and experts have raised concerns about possible contamination, adverse reactions, and unknown longer-term effects.⁶³ In February 2026, Secretary Kennedy expressed support for making peptides more widely available and has moved toward loosening restrictions on them.⁶⁴ In July 2026, an advisory committee to which he appointed members who stand to benefit from loosened restrictions ignored FDA staffers’ advice and recommended that the agency allow specialized “compounding” pharmacies to make several peptides despite lack of evidence that the products are safe.⁶⁵ Products can become widely available before regulators have sufficient evidence to identify and address potential risks. Ephedra, for example, was widely marketed for weight loss before being banned after evidence demonstrated its association with serious heart problems and other adverse events for around one-third of users.⁶⁶

Cosmetics and other personal care products also undergo limited oversight. One study found that about 88 chemicals in more than 73,000 cosmetic products have been identified as toxic chemicals that are associated with skin irritation/reactions, cancer, and reproductive harm.⁶⁷ The cosmetics, personal care, and supplements industries have grown exponentially since Congress first enacted legislation—the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938—allowing the FDA to oversee and regulate some aspects of the production, sale, and distribution of cosmetics.⁶⁸ This act granted the FDA relatively narrow authority compared with its oversight of goods such as drugs and medical supplies.⁶⁹

In fact, prior to recent reforms, oversight relied, in part, on voluntary industry participation.⁷⁰ Cosmetic manufacturers could choose whether to register through the FDA’s voluntary cosmetic registration program. In 2022, Congress enacted the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), the most substantial update to cosmetics regulation since 1938.⁷¹ MoCRA helped modernize existing law and expanded the FDA’s authority over cosmetics.⁷² The law strengthened postmarket oversight through required registration, reporting, and recall provisions. Unlike the prior voluntary system, registration is now mandatory, although small businesses with average annual U.S. sales below $1 million over the previous three years are exempt from some requirements.⁷³ However, the law still stops short of requiring systematic premarket safety evaluation for most cosmetic products.⁷⁴

A 2024 review of the health hazards of synthetic cosmetics highlighted the need for advanced safety assessments, greater sustainability, and more transparent, consumer-empowered innovation than are required by current law.⁷⁵ For dietary supplements and cosmetics, federal agencies have limited authority to require premarket testing and approval, often face insufficient resources, share fragmented jurisdictional authority, and cannot keep up with the rapid expansion of consumer products available through online marketplaces and third-party sellers.⁷⁶

The FDA primarily relies on postmarket surveillance methods such as adverse event reports, inspections, and internet searches to monitor safety. This reactive approach runs counter to the preventive safeguards that are essential to protecting Americans’ health and safety. Taken together, these weaknesses show that a more preventive regulatory framework would help to reduce harm by evaluating unsafe consumer products before they enter the market—rather than managing the consequences and health risks afterward.

Typically, federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans are science-based recommendations informed by an independent panel of experts and issued every five years.⁷⁷ Although they do not dictate consumer dietary patterns, they do influence the foods that public schools, hospitals, prisons, and military bases serve as well as foods offered in federal food assistance programs.⁷⁸ The guidelines have the potential to improve Americans’ health if they are evidence-based, developed through a transparent process, and used as a catalyst to remove barriers to nutritious diets. However, the Trump administration bypassed the most recent advisory committee’s scientific report developed over two years and instead relied on its own handpicked authors to inform the 2025 dietary guidelines.⁷⁹

While aspects of the new guidelines are evidence-based, they fail to follow scientific consensus in some areas; for example, they downplay the health risks of alcohol and prioritize protein and saturated fat intake through consumption of more red meat, despite evidence of health risks.⁸⁰ According to a 2025 food industry survey, meat sales had already increased.⁸¹ The guidelines also have been criticized for being unrealistic and lacking nuance, for instance recommending that children consume no added sugars through age 10, and for errors.⁸² Based on the flawed process and the recommendations, the guidelines may undermine public confidence in nutritional guidance.⁸³

Food insecurity affects 48 million people in the United States, including nearly 14 million—or 1 in 5—children.⁸⁴ Food insecurity is associated with poor health outcomes, including developmental delays and higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic conditions. As food insecurity increases, so does the likelihood of consuming ultra-processed foods.⁸⁵ Not to be confused with foods that are minimally processed through grinding, salting, fermenting,  and other methods that can make foods more palatable, nutritious, and longer lasting, ultra-processed foods have been compared to addictive substances such as tobacco because they are processed to promote “compulsive consumption.”⁸⁶ Ultra-processed foods that raise health concerns, such as sodas, candy, chips, and many boxed and ready-to-eat meals, are processed and marketed to be hyperpalatable and often contain very high levels of sugar or artificial sweeteners, which are also associated with health harms and lack nutritional value.⁸⁷ Communities that have limited access to fresh food tend to have low incomes and are associated with increased risk of several chronic health diseases, including obesity and heart disease, because residents may need to rely on less healthy, more processed, more affordable and available foods.⁸⁸

Federal nutrition programs—including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), school meals, the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and summer and afterschool nutrition programs—are not only critical anti-hunger interventions but are also proven public health strategies. These programs reduce childhood obesity, support brain development, and lower unnecessary health care use and costs.⁸⁹ In fact, according to a School Nutrition Association survey, schools that offer free meals to all students are almost twice as likely as schools that do not (20 percent compared with 11 percent) to offer daily food made from scratch, which is healthier than ultra-processed options.⁹⁰ The federal free and reduced-cost school lunch program has been shown to reduce rates of poor health in students by at least 29 percent and lower rates of obesity by at least 17 percent.⁹¹ The program is connected to SNAP, which supports 12 percent of U.S. households, nearly half of which include children.⁹² The Trump administration’s historic cuts to the SNAP program, along with tariffs that have increased costs across the food supply chain, are only making groceries less affordable, which is a top concern for households.⁹³ According to estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, between the enactment of the July 2025 budget reconciliation law, which cut SNAP funding by $187 billion, and May 2026, SNAP participation nationwide fell by roughly 5 million people, or 12 percent.⁹⁴

CACFP also mitigates the significant financial burden that child care providers face in buying food for young children, who depend on regular, nutritious meals to support healthy development.⁹⁵ Head Start programs—early learning and family support programs geared toward low-income families—are required to participate in a USDA child nutrition program such as CACFP.⁹⁶ President Trump’s annual budget request to Congress continues to make food less affordable through cuts to the WIC program, which serves an estimated 41 percent of all infants born in the United States and is strongly linked to improved birth and development outcomes.⁹⁷

Nearly everyone in the United States is exposed to ultra-processed foods and a range of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products and personal care products such as soaps, shampoo, lotions, perfumes, makeup, and other cosmetics,⁹⁸ but the risk from this exposure is not evenly distributed. Because of regulatory gaps, targeted marketing practices, workplace hazards, and environmental inequities, some populations experience greater exposure and worse health consequences than others.

Women generally use more personal care products than men, although research shows this gap is narrowing.⁹⁹ On average, women report using multiple products daily across body care, skin care, cosmetics, and even baby care. Women of reproductive age may face elevated risk because some endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in cosmetics and personal care products have been linked to hormone disruption, reproductive harm, and some cancers. Additionally, research suggests that women of color, and specifically Black women, may face elevated exposure to harmful chemicals due to frequent use of affected products, marketing patterns, and product formulation that can result in increased risk of uterine fibroids, breast cancer, preterm births, and other adverse reproductive outcomes.¹⁰⁰ For example, hair straightening and smoothing products, disproportionately used by Black women, frequently contain or release formaldehyde, which is known to cause cancer.¹⁰¹ And a scan of personal care products in stores frequented by Black, Latina, and Vietnamese women in California found that 65 percent of product labels contained chemicals of concern and 74 percent had undisclosed “fragrance” ingredients.¹⁰² The most prevalent chemicals were parabens, cyclosiloxanes, and formaldehyde releasers, which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, and reproductive harm for people of all genders.¹⁰³

Low-income communities and communities of color face compounded risks. These populations are more likely to live near polluted areas, have limited access to clean water and healthy foods, and experience higher baseline exposure to environmental contaminants.¹⁰⁴ When combined with exposure to consumer products containing hazardous chemicals, this adds to the existing burden.¹⁰⁵ At the same time, low-income households may have fewer affordable options for safer alternatives and therefore may rely on lower-cost foods and consumer products that contain potentially harmful ingredients.¹⁰⁶

Children are uniquely vulnerable to toxic exposures because their bodies, organs, and immune systems are still developing.¹⁰⁷ Early-life exposure can have lasting effects on brain development; long-term immune function; and cardiovascular, respiratory, and reproductive health. Exposure during pregnancy also carries risks because it can interfere with fetal development.¹⁰⁸ Endocrine-disrupting chemicals interfere with hormones, increasing the risk of infertility, preterm birth, and a range of long-term health issues.¹⁰⁹ Even low levels of exposure to certain chemicals such as those in plastic packaging, children’s toys, baby food, and even medical equipment during critical stages of development have been associated with increased susceptibility to chronic disease later in life.¹¹⁰ Children are also more vulnerable to microbiological foodborne illness and are more likely to be hospitalized as a result of infection from pathogens such as salmonella.¹¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has pointed to weaknesses in the regulatory system for food additives that raise child health concerns.¹¹² Researchers also recently found that more than 70 percent of foods, drinks, and snacks marketed for children younger than 36 months old are ultra-processed and contain additives such as preservatives, emulsifiers, colorings, and flavor enhancers, as well as added sugar, salt, and fats that can cause harm.¹¹³

Occupational exposure magnifies risk to some workers, such as nail and salon workers and cosmetologists, factory workers, agricultural laborers, and warehouse employees.¹¹⁴ These workers may experience prolonged exposure to chemicals every day that they work.¹¹⁵ For example, agricultural workers may handle pesticides, and factory and warehouse workers may be exposed to chemicals used in manufacturing and packaging processes.¹¹⁶ Cosmetologists working in nail salons may face exposure to nail enamels and hardeners that contain formaldehyde.¹¹⁷ Many of these jobs are held by low-wage workers and immigrants who already have limited access to health care, fewer workplace protections, and less ability to advocate for safer conditions.¹¹⁸

Policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that Americans have access to safe and healthy food, drinking water, and consumer products. According to an October 2025 research poll of U.S. adults by The Pew Charitable Trusts and Ipsos, more than 80 percent of respondents want more transparency about the chemicals in the products they use and consume and want the government to increase its efforts to identify and regulate harmful chemicals found in everyday products.¹³⁴ More than 80 percent also agreed that “companies that make chemicals found in everyday products cannot be trusted to ensure product safety without government oversight.” The Center for American Progress recommends the following actions to improve transparency and the health and safety of products that Americans use and consume.

Protect Americans from foodborne illnesses through a robust food inspection program

The health and economic costs of foodborne illness demand that the federal government strengthen its food safety oversight, yet the Trump administration and Congress have done the opposite, delaying rules designed to prevent food contamination and foodborne illnesses.¹³⁵ In August 2025, the FDA proposed a rule to extend the compliance deadline for the Food Traceability Rule, which adds recordkeeping requirements to enhance the ability to quickly trace movement in the food supply chain to mitigate foodborne illness outbreaks.¹³⁶ The FDA proposed extending the final rule’s compliance date of January 20, 2026, by 30 months. In November 2025, Congress added an appropriations rider in its continuing resolution that does just that.¹³⁷ Congress should rescind this delay and restore FDA’s funding to enforce traceability requirements to ensure faster and more effective investigations of foodborne illness outbreaks, and the FDA must act.

The Trump administration should develop a national strategy that coordinates across federal food safety agencies to improve the federal food safety oversight system, as the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended in 2017.¹³⁸ However, the Trump administration has gutted the FDA, leading to a historic low of foreign food facility inspections.¹³⁹

Congress should enact the Protect Infant Formula from Contamination Act sponsored by Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), which would improve FDA oversight of baby formula manufacturing.¹⁴⁰ The bill would mandate enhanced product testing protocols, require manufacturers to rapidly report and respond to positive contamination results, and direct ongoing reporting on the infant formula supply chain. States and the CDC should require doctors and laboratories to report cases of contaminated formula to the authorities.¹⁴¹

Congress also should adequately fund the CDC’s food safety program and expand FoodNet, which has been shown to be effective in reducing outbreaks and saving costs.¹⁴² CDC and state health departments should be adequately funded to conduct active surveillance of known pathogens to improve tracking, identification, and response to foodborne illnesses, rather than waiting for reactive reports of illnesses after the harm has already been done.¹⁴³ The FDA also must be adequately resourced to ensure that manufacturers meet their responsibilities to provide safe products, including funding for research, testing, oversight investigations, and corrective action monitoring.¹⁴⁴

Monitor, identify, and rapidly remove toxic threats in food and water and hold corporations responsible when their products harm the public’s health

The FDA’s Closer to Zero initiative aims to reduce exposure to dietary contaminants while simultaneously maintaining industry capacity to provide access to nutritious foods.¹⁴⁵ However, the FDA’s phased timeline must be accelerated to include more stringent federal limits for toxic heavy metals and to include snack foods such as teething biscuits and puffs in the food supply to safeguard public health.¹⁴⁶ For instance, although there is no safe level of lead exposure for young children, the FDA’s January 2025 guidance on levels for lead in food intended for babies and young children sets limits of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for fruits, vegetables, premixed meals, and yogurts, and 20 ppb for root vegetables and dry cereals.¹⁴⁷ The action level for inorganic arsenic in apple juice is 10 ppb.¹⁴⁸ Lower action limits—the exposure threshold at which action must be taken—should also be set for other heavy metals, including cadmium and mercury, often found in food products marketed for children and other commonly consumed foods. Limits proposed have cited 5 ppb for cadmium and 2 ppb for mercury.¹⁴⁹

High levels of heavy metals have been found in foods that children consume, including one of the nation’s “worst baby food scandals in decades” that led to a CDC investigation of more than 500 cases of lead exposure from contaminated applesauce.¹⁵⁰ The FDA should be funded to increase lab capacity to test products, ensure higher industry compliance with enforcement limits, and conduct more research with conflict-of-interest safeguards.¹⁵¹

In addition, Congress should enact legislation to protect Americans from toxic pesticides that are banned in other countries and should prohibit liability shields for pesticide manufacturers, which were introduced into, but stripped from, the House appropriations bill and the Farm Bill in 2026.¹⁵² As examples, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act of 2025, introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), would prohibit liability shields so that chemical companies can be held accountable for harm caused by their products.¹⁵³ The Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act, also introduced by Sen. Booker, would prevent dangerous pesticides from remaining on the market indefinitely without review and would ban pesticides linked to health harm.¹⁵⁴ Congress also should codify the EPA’s drinking water limits on all six previously mentioned PFAS through the proposed PFAS National Drinking Water Standard Act of 2025 and restore funding for safe drinking water, including replacing lead service lines.¹⁵⁵

In the absence of federal policy, states are taking action to remove toxic chemicals from food.¹⁵⁶ Until the federal government takes comprehensive action, Congress must reject any efforts to preempt states’ authority to regulate food safety. Bipartisan state lawmakers, environmental organizations, and public health advocates have publicly endorsed efforts to preserve states’ authority to protect public health and safety through food safety laws.¹⁵⁷

Strengthen premarket safety review for dietary supplements, cosmetics, and personal care products

Strengthening consumer protection starts with updating federal law to reflect today’s marketplace. Many consumer products—including cosmetics, supplements, personal care items such as those used for grooming and hygiene, and food materials—are regulated under outdated statutes written long before modern manufacturing dramatically expanded the products available to consumers and the growth of in-person and online marketplaces.¹⁵⁸

Congress and federal agencies should modernize these statutes by shifting from a primarily postmarket enforcement model toward a more preventive framework, including expedited reviews of high-priority ingredients.¹⁵⁹ This would mean expanding premarket review authority for high-risk products—those with widespread daily consumer exposure and identified elevated health concerns based on existing scientific evidence—and requiring transparency of ingredients and traceability of products, as well as aligning regulatory capacity with the realities of a globalized supply chain. Congress should follow the example of states that have banned PFAS from food packaging and dental floss.¹⁶⁰ Across all these categories, the principle remains that products that Americans use every day should meet clear, science-based safety standards. Four bills introduced in 2025 by lead sponsor Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and colleagues as part of the Safer Beauty Bill Package would improve federal regulation of cosmetic products by banning some of the most toxic chemicals, requiring disclosure of toxic chemicals, improving transparency, and helping to protect women of color and salon workers.¹⁶¹

Bolster monitoring, enforcement, and incentives to reverse the increasing harms of producing, marketing, and consuming ultra-processed food

Public policies must hold accountable corporations whose significant and growing political and economic power has driven rising consumption of ultra-processed foods, many of which share addictive properties with cigarettes; are heavily marketed; and harm health, the environment, and the economy.¹⁶² However, provisions of the appropriations bill for FY 2026 limit the development of rules to regulate high-sodium food products, which are often considered to be ultra-processed foods.¹⁶³

Congress should regulate ultra-processed food products and food environments and limit the excessive political and economic influence of the corporations that manufacture and sell these products. The Lancet’s three-part series on ultra-processed foods and human health provides examples from other countries for the United States to emulate, including placing warning labels on foods and menus, restricting foods sold in schools and marketed to children, and creating economic incentives for producing healthier, fresh, and minimally processed foods.¹⁶⁴

According to a systematic review, fruit and vegetable subsidies have been associated with an increase in fruit and vegetable sales.¹⁶⁵ Policies on ultra-processed foods must be enacted and implemented in ways that avoid disproportionate harm to low-income and vulnerable communities who rely on available, affordable, and convenient products. However, Congress faces fierce opposition to such regulation; research shows that in the 23 years from 1998 to 2020, ultra-processed food companies spent $1.15 billion on lobbying, compared with $817 million spent by the gambling industry, $755 million by the tobacco industry, and $541 million by the alcohol industry.¹⁶⁶

Congress also should close the “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) loophole within the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that permits food manufacturers to proclaim their food as safe without FDA oversight.¹⁶⁷ According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, the food and chemical industry has used this provision to add 111 food chemicals to the food supply with no FDA oversight to ensure their safety.¹⁶⁸ In August 2026, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would require companies planning to use a new food additive to notify the FDA and provide details on how they decided the additive meets GRAS criteria. Manufacturers that currently use GRAS substances would need to inform the FDA about how the additive is used, information that would become publicly available.¹⁶⁹ While this would provide the FDA and the public with more information about the additives that they consume, companies would not need to obtain premarket approval or be required to prove the additives are safe. This proposal would continue to allow companies to self-monitor without any enforcement mechanism. As a result, although Secretary Kennedy has claimed to close the GRAS loophole with this initiative, it fails to do so.¹⁷⁰

The FDA’s authority to modify the GRAS exemption is likely to be challenged in court.¹⁷¹ Congress, or the FDA if the courts rule it has the authority, should act on a proposal by former FDA Commissioner David Kessler that would revoke the GRAS label for processed refined carbohydrates, certain sweeteners, and starches that are markers of ultra-processed foods, and require proof that they are safe for continued use.¹⁷² Pending proof, the products would be removed from the market. The FDA must be better resourced for oversight functions for such provisions to be effective.¹⁷³

Finally, the Trump administration should finalize a Biden administration proposed FDA rule that would require food manufacturers to place front-of-package labels on their products indicating whether the product has high, medium, or low levels of sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars.¹⁷⁴ Congress should enact the Food Labeling Modernization Act, which would also reduce misleading food marketing by providing consumers with clear and consistent standards for terms such as “natural” or “healthy.”¹⁷⁵ States and the federal government should follow California’s lead in enacting legislation that requires scientists to study research on ultra-processed foods and policies in other countries, identify foods that are the most concerning, and phase them out from school cafeterias by 2035.¹⁷⁶

Improve consumer product safety through stronger standards that include enhanced product monitoring, timely enforcement, and greater transparency

Many everyday household products, including furniture, toys, and textiles, fall under the purview of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).¹⁷⁷ These products may contain hazardous chemicals or materials such as flame retardants, formaldehyde, phthalates, PFAS, and lead.¹⁷⁸ Yet, significant statutory and structural limitations weaken CPSC’s ability to respond quickly and decisively.¹⁷⁹ Congress must strengthen the authority, independence, and resources of the CPSC to better protect consumers from unsafe products.

Congress should remove barriers to issuing mandatory consumer safety rules, strengthen the agency’s mandatory recall authority, increase civil penalties for violations, and improve transparency so consumers can access timely safety information. Congress must also ensure adequate funding for CPSC through a mandatory funding stream so that it has adequate resources, staffing, independence, and enforcement capacity.

President Joe Biden’s FY 2025 budget proposal suggested legislative reforms to strengthen recall authority, improve transparency, and increase penalties for noncompliance.¹⁸¹ It also included other investments in chemical safety, such as funding to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act and to address the widespread presence of PFAS. By contrast, President Trump’s FY 2027 budget proposal would reorganize the CPSC by unrealistically transferring its functions into the Department of Health and Human Services rather than maintaining it as an independent agency, while proposing lower overall funding and staffing than prior appropriations.¹⁸²

The Trump administration’s proposed actions would weaken the agency’s independence and reduce its resources, causing further strain on an already deficient oversight system. The purpose of the CPSC is to protect Americans from unsafe consumer products.¹⁸³ Empowering the agency with stronger authorities and stable, adequate funding would enable it to achieve this mission. In addition, Congress should clarify that CPSC must hold online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms accountable for the unsafe products they have listed and sold, even if done so through third-party sellers.¹⁸⁴

Food processing takes a significant amount of energy. As part of a broader agenda to build healthy food systems, the federal government should invest in programs that support the production, processing, access, and affordability of fresh, healthy foods, including reestablishing grant programs eliminated by the Trump administration that provided federal incentives and support for local food purchases for schools, child care facilities, and food banks.¹⁸⁵ One such program that the Trump administration cut in 2025, the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement program, provided $660 million to bolster locally grown food in school meals.¹⁸⁶ In 2009, Brazil began requiring direct procurement of foods for school meals from family farmers. The change has been associated with increased procurement of fruits and vegetables and decreased use of ultra-processed foods.¹⁸⁷

The federal government should also invest in effective programs that aim to reduce food waste; support infrastructure financing for regional food markets; and help consumers access fruits and vegetables while also providing economic opportunity for farmers such as through the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and Double Up Food Bucks.¹⁸⁸ However, there are many barriers to participating in Double Up Food Bucks, including availability in only 27 states, requirement of a local match, guidelines that limit their use, and poor marketing. The federal government should provide incentives for all states to participate, increase marketing, ensure the added food benefits can be used in grocery stores in addition to farmers markets, and expand their use to frozen and canned products.¹⁸⁹ Shifting the food system to be more sustainable and resilient will require policymakers to take seriously the data and science that indicate how the current food system is failing.

Strengthen nutrition assistance programs to address historic and systemic inequities that affect exposure to harm

Reducing harm from poorly regulated consumer products requires more than updating safety standards through regulatory reform. It also requires policymakers to address the structural inequities that determine who is exposed to harmful product ingredients, how much exposure they experience, and who is least protected. Communities facing food insecurity, economic instability, and heightened environmental exposures are more likely to experience impacts from cumulative exposure that contributes to significant and long-term poor health outcomes.¹⁹⁰ Thus, any policy decisions must integrate consumer safety with food security, economic policy, and public health infrastructure.

Policymakers must restore and strengthen accurate data collection. Without consistent data about food insecurity, policymakers lack evidence to design and implement targeted interventions. For example, the Trump administration’s cancellation of the Food Security Supplement (FSS) to the Current Population Survey removes reporting and thus the source of national- and state-level statistics on food insecurity, eliminating a key source of information about household food access.¹⁹¹ Congress should restore and protect this data collection to understand how many Americans struggle to afford enough food and how historic cuts to SNAP affect trends in food insecurity and who is affected.

Households with limited access to affordable, healthy foods are more likely to rely on ultra-processed and shelf-stable products. These foods may be packaged in food wrappers and containers that contain harmful chemicals such as plastics or PFAS. Policymakers should:

• Expand incentives and options for grocery stores and food retailers to locate in underserved communities¹⁹²
• Support farmers markets and community food programs
• Invest in local and regional food systems and farmers from historically underserved communities and promote access to fresh, local food

Lastly, policymakers must protect and strengthen nutrition assistance programs such as SNAP, WIC, CACFP, and school meal and summer meal programs. Federal nutrition programs are essential for reducing both food insecurity and health disparities, and they help millions of families to afford food each year. The need to protect these programs is particularly urgent as recent federal policy changes have reduced SNAP benefits and access, while new proposals threaten WIC funding and benefits.¹⁹³

Protecting and strengthening these programs would help improve diets and reduce economic hardship while supporting healthier outcomes for children and families. Congress must preserve access to the entire nutrition safety net by reversing the $187 billion in SNAP cuts enacted in 2025, rejecting further restrictions that make it harder for eligible families to access assistance, and ensuring that states have the resources needed to administer the program.¹⁹⁴ Congress should also fully fund WIC and protect the value of its nutrition benefits, as well as maintain strong funding for child nutrition programs.¹⁹⁵

Develop evidence-based dietary guidelines and messaging that take into consideration how income, access to food, and culture influence diet and health

Dietary guidelines must be developed through a transparent, independent scientific review to build public trust.¹⁹⁶ Although the Trump administration rejected the December 2024 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report because it used an equity lens, guidelines should be evidence-based and take into account factors such as culture and income, which influence food access and intake.¹⁹⁷ In contrast to the Trump administration’s strategy, public messaging about the guidelines should promote evidence-based recommendations without shaming individuals and communities that have limited options.¹⁹⁸ Attaching moral values to eating blames individuals for their food choices and ignores barriers to healthy eating.¹⁹⁹ Creating guilt and shame does not result in healthier behavior, nor does it address systemic problems that perpetuate differences in consumption and health outcomes.²⁰⁰

The food, drinking water, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and other household products that Americans consume and use are heavily influenced by political, economic, and systemic factors that affect consumption. Rather than expecting individual behaviors to improve public consumption, solutions to improve health and safety depend on filling regulatory voids and having robust federal agencies that are staffed and funded to enforce protections. Policymakers must seize the growing interest in healthy products to improve access to and the availability and affordability of healthy, minimally processed, safe, and toxic-free foods, drinking water, and consumer products. Policymakers should:

• Set stringent federal guidance for limiting toxic heavy metals in food, ban pesticides linked to health harm, codify the EPA’s drinking water limits on all six PFAS (forever chemicals), and eliminate lead pipes to improve the safety of drinking water
• Conduct premarket safety reviews of everyday products such as baby formula, cosmetics, and dietary supplements and prevent dangerous products from remaining on the market indefinitely without review
• Require companies to provide ingredient transparency including user-friendly nutrition warning labels on foods, disclose toxic chemicals in products, and prove the safety of food ingredients
• Support local food systems and programs in underserved communities and minimally processed foods from small, independent, local, and organic farmers
• Hold companies accountable for harm by prohibiting liability shields for pesticide manufacturers, rejecting any efforts to preempt states’ authority to regulate food safety, and limiting excessive corporate political and economic influence
• Close the “Generally Recognized As Safe” loophole so that food manufacturers must prove the safety of food ingredients before use rather than claim their products are safe without FDA oversight
• Enact conflict-of-interest safeguards in research and policy development so that dietary guidelines are based on robust scientific evidence; protect accurate data collection about food insecurity; and reinvest in health and safety research to transition to a sustainable food supply
• Use the Farm Bill and other mechanisms to protect and strengthen nutrition assistance programs such as SNAP, WIC, CACFP, and school and summer meal programs
• Adequately resource the FDA, CDC, CPSC, and state health departments to monitor, identify, investigate, and respond to health threats, and hold manufacturers accountable for unsafe products through mandatory recall authority and civil penalties for violations

According to acclaimed nutritionist and consumer advocate Marion Nestle, the nation’s food system needs a revolution to prioritize “public health rather than corporate health.”²⁰¹ Policymakers must step in where federal leadership has fallen short to address the systemic lack of fair options and support programs that provide all Americans with enough safe and healthy food; robust safety monitoring; reduced exposure to food contaminants, toxic chemicals, and pollutants; and regulation of all potentially harmful products. They also must create incentives for healthy, affordable, minimally processed food and provide evidence-based, scientifically sound nutritional guidance with shame-free communications about health risks. In short, policymakers must prioritize the health and safety of Americans rather than protect the power of food and consumer product corporations that are driven primarily by profits. U.S. communities are stronger when they protect people from harm and ensure access to safe and healthy products.

The authors thank Paige Shoemaker DeMio, Hailey Gibbs, Cathleen Kelly, Anne Knapke, Kyle Ross, Topher Spiro, and Christian Unkenholz at the Center for American Progress; Liam Sacino, formerly of PIRG; Courtney Griffin and Thomas Gremillion at Consumer Federation of America; Katherine Schwarz, adjunct lecturer, Lehman College, the City University of New York; Geoff Horsfield with the Environmental Working Group; Dr. Theresa Highsmith from the Fulton County Board of Health; and Sarah Bucic with Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments for their reviews of and feedback on this report. The authors thank Brian Keyser for fact-checking.