Comment from Anonymous

I am submitting this comment as a registered nurse, a consumer, and someone who has personally faced cancer. I support the FDA's decision to reassess azodicarbonamide (ADA), and I urge the agency to conduct a rigorous and transparent evaluation of both ADA itself and the compounds that may result from its use and decomposition. My concern is not based on the belief that the mere presence of a chemical automatically makes a food unsafe. As a healthcare professional, I understand that dose, exposure, route, and quality of evidence matter. My concern is whether a nonessential food additive should remain in widespread use when meaningful questions about long-term exposure or breakdown products remain unresolved. The FDA should evaluate actual current use levels, realistic cumulative dietary exposure, chronic exposure over time, and the safety of relevant decomposition products. The review should also clearly identify important gaps in the available evidence rather than treating a lack of data as reassurance. I believe the FDA should also consider whether the technological function of an additive is essential when weighing uncertain risks and available alternatives. When a substance is used primarily to bleach flour or alter dough characteristics, consumers deserve a clear explanation of what benefit justifies continued exposure and whether safer alternatives can accomplish the same purpose. Americans reasonably assume that substances added to food are continuously reassessed as science advances. Most people do not have the time, training, or resources to independently investigate every ingredient in every product they buy. They should not have to. I urge the FDA to make its evidence, exposure assumptions, uncertainties, and reasoning publicly accessible. If the available evidence cannot establish an adequate margin of safety for ADA and its relevant decomposition products under real-world conditions of use, the FDA should take appropriate regulatory action rather than allowing continued use by default. I strongly support meaningful post-market review and a food safety system in which long-standing authorization does not substitute for current evidence.