FDA’s food safety agenda prioritizes corporate oversight gaps while sidelining systemic reform in ultraprocessed food regulation and infant formula oversight

Indigenous food systems prioritize holistic safety through intergenerational knowledge, such as fermentation techniques that prevent contamination without synthetic additives. The FDA’s regulatory model, which centers corporate accountability, ignores these proven alternatives, instead framing safety as a technocratic problem solvable by inspections and labels. This reflects a colonial legacy where Western scientific frameworks dismiss traditional practices as 'unscientific' despite their efficacy. Revitalizing indigenous food sovereignty could reduce reliance on formula and ultraprocessed foods, but requires dismantling the regulatory frameworks that marginalize these practices.

The FDA’s current priorities echo past failures to regulate infant formula, such as the 1980s Nestlé boycott over aggressive marketing in the Global South, which led to infant malnutrition and mortality. Structural conflicts of interest have persisted since the 1970s, when the FDA’s reliance on industry-funded research began undermining public health protections. The 2022 Abbott formula recall, which sickened infants and led to shortages, is not an anomaly but a symptom of decades of deregulation and underfunding of food safety agencies. Historical parallels in pharmaceutical regulation (e.g., opioid crisis) show how revolving-door appointments between regulators and industry enable systemic failures.

In Mexico, traditional *nixtamalization* (alkaline processing of corn) has historically prevented aflatoxin contamination in staple foods, a practice ignored by FDA’s ultraprocessed food framework. The Global South’s reliance on breast milk substitutes, often marketed by Western corporations, has led to nutritional crises that contrast with Indigenous breastfeeding practices in communities like the Maya or Maasai. The FDA’s focus on labeling and inspections reflects a Western biomedical model that pathologizes traditional diets while ignoring how industrial food systems disrupt local food sovereignty. Cross-cultural comparisons reveal that food safety is not just a regulatory issue but a cultural and ecological one.

The FDA’s emphasis on inspections and labeling updates is grounded in risk-based regulatory science, but this approach fails to address the systemic drivers of contamination, such as underfunded public health infrastructure and industry self-regulation. Scientific consensus links ultraprocessed foods to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, yet the FDA lacks the authority to restrict their marketing or composition. The agency’s reliance on industry-funded research (e.g., for formula safety) creates conflicts of interest that undermine public trust in regulatory science. A more rigorous, independent scientific approach would require decoupling funding from industry influence.

Artistic and spiritual traditions often frame food as sacred, with practices like communal meals or fasting serving as both nutritional and cultural rituals that foster resilience. The FDA’s technocratic approach to food safety strips these dimensions away, reducing food to a commodity governed by corporate and bureaucratic logic. Indigenous and religious food practices (e.g., halal, kosher, or Ayurvedic dietary laws) emphasize purity and ethical sourcing, which contrast sharply with the FDA’s focus on contamination control. Reintegrating these dimensions could shift the narrative from 'safety' to 'sacredness' in food systems.

Future scenarios show that without structural reforms, the FDA’s current approach will perpetuate cycles of contamination, inequity, and corporate control over food systems. Modeling suggests that investing in public health infrastructure (e.g., community-based lactation support) could reduce reliance on formula and ultraprocessed foods by 30% within a decade. Alternative regulatory models, such as participatory food safety councils with Indigenous and marginalized voices, could improve outcomes but require dismantling existing power structures. The long-term implications include worsening diet-related diseases and environmental degradation if industrial food systems remain unchecked.

Marginalized communities, particularly Black, Indigenous, and low-income families, bear the brunt of food safety failures due to systemic disinvestment in their neighborhoods and lack of access to culturally appropriate nutrition. The FDA’s priorities ignore the disproportionate impact of formula marketing on these communities, where aggressive advertising and lack of lactation support drive reliance on unsafe products. Indigenous women, who have historically faced forced sterilization and removal of children, are now targeted by formula companies in a continuation of colonial practices. Amplifying these voices would require shifting power to community-led food sovereignty initiatives.