Does the EU *actually* Regulate Ingredients More Strictly Than the US?
If you follow information about chemicals in things like cosmetics, baby products, food dyes, foods etc., you've likely seen content talking about how the EU bans or restricts more chemicals than the US does.
As someone that has studied environmental law for over a decade, hear me out:
This isn't always true, BUT the EU does approach chemical regulation very differently than the US does.
It boils down to a hazard vs risk approach.
The easiest way to explain hazard vs risk is to talk about sharks.
A HAZARD is something that can cause harm or danger. Like a shark!
A RISK is the likelihood of that hazard causing harm. If you swim in water with a shark, there's a higher risk of harm than if you aren't in the water.
But the hazard (the shark) is still present in both scenarios. Make sense?
In the EU, chemical regulators take a hazard-based approach. This means that if a chemical is known or suspected to be dangerous (carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting, or toxic), it's restricted or banned, even if exposure is considered low.
The goal is to remove harmful substances
*before* they pose a risk rather than waiting for harm to be proven. This is referred to as the
"precautionary principle."
In the US, chemical regulators are looking for the level of risk posed by the presence or use of chemicals in commerce.
Here's where a risk-based approach falls short, though: because of how widespread the use of many chemicals is, there are dozens, if not hundreds, or even thousands of different sources of exposure. It's VERY hard to accurately assess exposure. Risk assessments will rarely paint a complete picture.
In the US, we tend to view chemicals as "innocent until proven guilty." This is great for criminal justice but not great for chemicals.
Am I defending the USA's approach? No, I personally think it's dumb.
But, I do think how many content creators are framing this argument isn't totally accurate - the "grey area" is being left out.
One thing I see taken out of context a lot lately is the idea that "food dyes are banned in the EU"
The EU doesn't outright ban artificial food dyes, but it requires products containing certain dyes (like Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) to carry a warning label stating they may cause adverse effects on activity and attention in children.
However, there are a few * individual countries* that have banned * certain* food dyes, but not all
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/food-colours
Norway and Finland: Ban Yellow No. 5.
Germany, France, and Switzerland: Ban Blue No. 1.
Switzerland: Ban Red No. 40.
Red Dye No. 3, also known as erythrosine, has been banned for use in food in the European Union EU) since 1994, with the exception of certain maraschino cherry products.
Are some US products reformulated for the EU?
Yes, but - that doesn't suddenly make them all healthy, which I have also seen taken out of context a lot lately, too.
Again, I'm not defending the FDAs approach, but I do think this arguement gets taken out of context and used for click bait a lot in the low tox space.
(Shoot I have even been guilty of it in the past without realizing it).
Or maybe not clickbait, maybe some content creators simply haven't looked into it further.
Either way, my goal is to show you both sides of an agreement so you can be informed overall.
