Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT); Request for Information
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT); Request for Information
- Posted
- May 13, 2026
- Comment period
- May 13, 2026 – Sep 1, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-09507
- Topics
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Impact on animal food |
|---|---|
Food & Beverage Issue Alliance (FBIA) Trade associationSupport The Food & Beverage Issue Alliance (FBIA), a coalition of 48 food and beverage trade associations, argues that the FDA s |
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jul 13, 2026Comment from National Pork Producers CouncilSupportTrade association📎 Attachment
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) supports the continued authorization of Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a safe and technologically necessary antioxidant in the food supply. They argue that BHT is essential for maintaining product quality, reducing food waste, and supporting international trade, particularly within the pork industry.
Read comment → - Jul 13, 2026Comment from EWGSupportAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) urges the FDA to revoke the approval of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a food additive. They argue that experimental animal studies provide strong evidence of liver toxicity, tumor-promoting activity, and potential endocrine disruption, which do not meet the standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.
Read comment → - Jul 9, 2026Comment from AnonymousSupportIndividual
The commenter, a registered nurse and consumer, supports a rigorous and transparent post-market review of BHT. They argue that the FDA should account for cumulative dietary exposure and scientific uncertainties rather than relying on outdated safety assumptions.
Read comment → - Jul 8, 2026Comment from James Di NasoSupportIndividual
The commenter supports the FDA conducting stronger, more frequent, and science-based reviews of BHT and other food additives. They specifically advocate for testing chemicals in combination rather than in isolation and call for increased transparency through updated food labeling statutes.
Read comment →
