We Tested 40 Popular Food Products: One quarter Contained Additives in One Serving Exceeding Daily Safety Levels

Photo: Scott Meadows / Consumer Reports

From breakfast cereals and sodas to snacks and desserts, food additives have become ubiquitous in the American food supply. These substances are commonly used to enhance taste, texture, shelf life, or appearance, but a growing body of scientific research has raised concerns about the potential health effects of some widely used additives.

Yet many of these substances remain prevalent in the United States, despite being banned or more strictly regulated in Europe and other parts of the world.

Against this backdrop, Yuka and Consumer Reports conducted an investigation into the levels of several controversial additives found in everyday food products sold across the United States. We analyzed 40 popular products consumed by millions of Americans, including many children.

The findings are alarming: one quarter of the products tested contained additive levels in a single serving that exceeded daily safety levels identified by U.S. or European public health agencies. When considering broader scientific evidence, nearly two thirds of the 40 products tested (25 products) contained at least one additive exceeding levels of concern identified in respected peer-reviewed studies.

Discover the full results of our investigation and learn which products raised the greatest health concerns.

Why Additives Are a Growing Health Concern

Food additives are everywhere on supermarket shelves, especially in the United States. According to a Yuka analysis of more than one million food products across eight countries, American products contain an average of 3.14 additives per product; twice as many as products sold in Italy, 68% more than in France, and 24% more than in Canada¹.

These substances, generally of synthetic origin, are added by manufacturers to serve a variety of technological purposes: enhancing flavor, modifying texture, extending shelf life, or improving visual appeal. Preservatives, colorings, sweeteners, and texture agents are therefore widely used in processed foods consumed daily by millions of Americans. However, a growing body of scientific research has associated some of these additives with potential health risks.

One major issue is that U.S. regulations often rely on safety evaluations conducted decades ago, with little meaningful reassessment in light of new scientific evidence. Since then, research methods have evolved considerably, and recent studies have identified toxic effects that were undetectable during the original evaluations².

In response to these concerns, several health authorities around the world have taken stronger regulatory action. The European Union has banned titanium dioxide in food since 2022 and requires warning labels on products containing certain artificial colorings^3,4. Canada regularly updates the maximum permitted limits for several additives in order to better protect consumers⁵. In California, an official report published in 2021 led to the upcoming ban of Red 40 in public schools⁶. In 2023, the World Health Organization also advised against using artificial sweeteners for weight loss due to the lack of demonstrated long-term benefits⁷. No comparable federal measures, however, have been adopted in the United States.

As a result, the U.S. imposes far fewer restrictions than Europe on substances whose risks are nonetheless documented. Among the 50 most commonly used additives identified by Yuka as presenting some level of concern, 38% are not subject to any enforceable limit on the quantity permitted in food products in the United States, compared with just 14% in the European Union⁸.

Finally, many new additives are now introduced through a regulatory loophole called “GRAS” (“generally recognized as safe”). This system allows manufacturers to use certain substances without prior independent evaluation by the FDA, and in some cases, without even notifying the agency. According to an investigation by the Environmental Working Group, nearly 99% of the new substances added to food since the 2000s were introduced through this mechanism^9-12.

👉See our investigation into the differences in additive regulation between the United States and Europe

In the absence of strong and consistent federal regulations on food additives, our two organizations conducted laboratory analyses to measure additive concentrations in food products that are especially popular among American consumers. The results were then compared against the most protective health-based thresholds currently used by public health authorities around the world, as well as with broader levels of concern identified in respected peer-reviewed scientific studies.

How We Conducted Our Tests

We first identified the eight additives presenting the highest levels of health concern based on the available scientific evidence. This selection was based both on the strength of the evidence regarding their health effects and on data indicating that part of the population may be exposed to them at concerning levels. The additives selected were acesulfame-K, aspartame, BHA, BHT, Red 40, sodium nitrite, sucralose, and titanium dioxide.

We then selected 40 very popular food products in the United States using scan data collected through the Yuka app. The products tested spanned several major categories, including pastries and sweet baked goods, ice cream and frozen desserts, confectionery, snacks, gelatins and puddings, processed meats, chips and potato-based products, and yogurts. The beverages analyzed included sodas, sports drinks, flavored drinks, energy drinks, and fruit juices.

Samples of each of these products were then analyzed by an ISO 17025-accredited laboratory, the international reference standard ensuring the reliability of analytical methods and the quality of implemented procedures¹³.

Finally, the measured concentrations were compared with daily safety thresholds identified by U.S. or European public health agencies for both adults and children, as well as with levels of concern identified in respected peer-reviewed studies.

👉 See the full methodology details

Red 40 : concerning levels for children found in 5 products

Among the 13 products analyzed, five contained enough Red 40 to exceed, in a single serving, the daily safety level for children identified by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)¹⁴. Even more concerning, three of these products contained levels high enough to also exceed the daily safety level identified for adults.

We calculated separate risk levels for children and adults based on average body weights. The daily safety level is lower for children because of their lower body weight: for the same amount consumed, their exposure is proportionally much higher than that of an adult, who may weigh three to four times more. As a result, a quantity of Red 40 considered acceptable for an adult may still raise concerns for a child.

In addition, recent scientific evidence suggests that children may be biologically more vulnerable to the neurological effects of this coloring, as their brains are still developing. Several studies indicate that chronic exposure to Red 40 may contribute to behavioral changes, including hyperactivity and attention disorders^15,16.

Researchers believe these effects may result in part from disruptions to neurotransmitter function, the chemical messengers that enable communication between neurons. Such disruptions could have lasting effects on behavior, attention, and concentration in some children who are regularly exposed^17-19.

Titanium dioxide : extremely high levels found in one very popular product

Testing revealed major differences in the quantities of titanium dioxide present across the four products analyzed.

One product stood out dramatically: Hostess’ Donettes, Mini Powdered Donuts contained 261 milligrams of titanium dioxide in a single serving, representing more than 760 times the combined amount found in the three other products tested that contained this additive.

These findings raise serious concerns. Titanium dioxide, a synthetic white coloring agent, was banned in food products in the European Union in 2022 due to concerns about genotoxicity, meaning its potential to induce breaks in DNA strands and cause chromosomal damage³. Following a comprehensive scientific reassessment in 2021, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that titanium dioxide “can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive”²⁰.

The levels identified in Hostess’ Donettes are especially troubling given how widely consumed this product is in the United States, particularly among children.

Artificial sweeteners : widespread exposure associated to chronic disease concerns

We tested 21 products for the presence of three widely used artificial sweeteners: acesulfame-K, aspartame, and sucralose. None of the products contained amounts exceeding the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) currently established by the FDA or the European Food Safety Authority^21,22.

However, the findings become far more concerning when viewed in light of recent peer-reviewed epidemiological research, notably the analyses of the NutriNet-Santé cohort^23-25. Nineteen of the 21 products tested contained enough of at least one sweetener in a single serving to exceed broader levels of concern associated in these epidemiological studies with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, or type 2 diabetes.

A growing body of scientific literature supports these concerns, including in vitro studies on cells, animal studies, as well as epidemiological and clinical studies in humans. Many of the most methodologically robust studies now point to two major conclusions: first, that artificial sweeteners do not provide long-term benefits for reducing body fat in either adults or children; and second, that “there may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use” of those artificial compounds, particularly an increased risk of chronic diseases⁷.

Two major categories of products were analyzed for their sweetener content:

• beverages, including “light” or “zero sugar” sodas, sports and energy drinks, and fruit juices
• “light” or “sugar-free” products intended as alternatives to traditional sweet snacks

Among the beverages analyzed, the most concerning amounts of acesulfame-K and aspartame were found in sugar-free sodas from major brands such as Pepsi, Sunkist, Mountain Dew, 7UP, and Coca-Cola.

For acesulfame-K and aspartame, consuming only about one-fifth and one-sixth of a can, respectively, was enough to exceed the levels associated in analyses of the NutriNet-Santé cohort with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. In other words, even relatively small daily amounts are enough to reach exposure levels associated in the scientific literature with an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

These conclusions are based on findings from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort, which followed more than 100,000 participants and has been widely recognized by the international scientific community for its methodological rigor^23-25. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) notably highlighted this research as the first study to identify such a precise and thoroughly documented association between aspartame exposure and cancer risk. The agency described it as “the most detailed” and “highly informative” on human exposure to artificial sweeteners²⁶.

These findings are particularly concerning given the widespread consumption of artificially sweetened beverages in the United States. In a large cohort study involving approximately 65,000 American women, nearly 13% of participants reported consuming at least one artificially sweetened beverage per day²⁸.

Among the “sugar-free” or “light” snacks marketed as alternatives to traditional sweet treats, sucralose and acesulfame-K were the most commonly used sweeteners.

Of the 11 products tested in this category, 10 exceeded levels of concern identified in peer-reviewed INSERM studies published in 2022 using data from the NutriNet-Santé cohort^24-26.

One product stood out in particular: Ratio’s High Protein Dairy Snack Vanilla, whose packaging prominently promotes its high protein content. This product showed the greatest exceedance of the level of concern for sucralose. A single serving contained the equivalent of 52% of the FDA’s Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for children for sucralose. In practical terms, consuming just two servings in a single day would exceed the FDA’s daily safety threshold for this sweetener²¹.

This is especially concerning given that current Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) in the U.S. are largely based on older toxicological evaluations and may not fully reflect the latest scientific evidence regarding long-term metabolic and health effects.

At the same time, many consumers now incorporate these “high-protein” and “sugar-free” snacks into their daily diets, often perceiving them as healthier alternatives. These findings therefore underscore the need for greater transparency around the significant quantities of artificial sweeteners present in such products, as well as the fact that some exceed levels of concern identified in recent scientific studies.

What Yuka and CR’s Tests Revealed

The results of our investigation highlight a major issue with the use of additives in food products sold across the United States. 

Among the 40 products we tested : 

• one quarter contained additive levels in a single serving that exceeded daily safety levels identified by U.S. or European public health agencies 
• nearly two thirds of the products tested (25 out of 40) contained at least one additive exceeding broader levels of concern identified in respected peer-reviewed studies.

The additives most frequently found at concerning levels were Red 40, titanium dioxide, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium.

These findings are especially concerning given that the potential health risks associated with these additives are among the most extensively documented in the scientific literature.

• For Red 40, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviewed more than 300 scientific studies — including human clinical trials, epidemiological studies, animal neurotoxicity studies, in vitro research and dietary exposure assessments — and said the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) would be up to 100 times lower than the current U.S. federal limit taking into account the most recent studies. California has also moved to ban Red 40 and several other synthetic food dyes from meals served in public schools starting in 2027¹⁴.
• For artificial sweeteners, the World Health Organization reviewed 283 human studies before concluding in 2023 that these additives should not be used for weight control purposes⁷. That same year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the WHO’s cancer research agency, classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B)²⁶.
• As for titanium dioxide, the European Union banned its use in food in 2022 following a reassessment conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), based on the review of more than 12,000 scientific publications²⁹.

Taken together, these results raise serious concerns given how frequently these products are consumed. Many are eaten daily by millions of children and adults across the United States. More importantly, several of these products can easily be consumed within the same day, leading to cumulative exposure to multiple additives of concern.

👉 View the full results of the Yuka and Consumer Reports investigation

Industry and FDA Responses

Before publication, Yuka and Consumer Reports contacted the manufacturers of all products highlighted in this investigation to share our findings and methodology and offer them an opportunity to respond. Only four responded to our multiple requests for comment, and McKee Foods, maker of the Little Debbie Oatmeal Creme Pies, declined to comment.

Several companies stated that the additive levels identified in their products comply with current FDA regulations and remain below the acceptable daily intake levels established by U.S. authorities.

Kraft Heinz, for example, stated that the levels of Red 40 identified in Kool-Aid and Jell-O Zero were “within approved limits” and emphasized that the company is in the process of removing synthetic dyes from parts of its portfolio.

Ocean Spray similarly noted that its products comply with current FDA regulations, while indicating plans to transition certain beverages to formulas using natural colors.

Amos stated that the amount of titanium dioxide identified in its gummies remains below the current FDA maximum allowable level and said the company has initiated a reformulation process to remove artificial color additives from the Peelerz product line.

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents the packaged food industry, said that “America has one of the safest and most highly regulated food systems in the world” and argued that the findings of this investigation could undermine public confidence in the food supply.

The Calorie Control Council, which represents the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, also responded on artificial sweeteners. “Observational studies can identify statistical associations but cannot establish causation,” said Carla Saunders, president of the Calorie Control Council.

The FDA declined to comment on the specific findings of this investigation but stated that it has launched a stronger post-market review process for chemicals and additives already on the market.

Our Recommendations

These findings underscore the shortcomings of the current regulatory framework governing food additives in the United States. In this context, it is essential that consumers have clear, transparent, and reliable access to information about the composition of the products they consume so they can make informed decisions about their health. More importantly, there is an urgent need for the FDA to significantly strengthen its approach to the evaluation, monitoring, and regulation of food additives.

Our recommendations for consumers

We recommend limiting, as much as possible, the consumption of products containing the additives identified as concerning in this study, particularly Red 40, titanium dioxide, and artificial sweeteners such as sucralose, acesulfame-K, and aspartame. In addition, we also measured the levels of BHA and BHT in several popular products. Although the amounts identified did not exceed levels considered concerning for a single serving, these additives should nonetheless be avoided given the numerous concerns raised in the scientific literature regarding their potential health effects^33-35.

We also recommend limiting products containing mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids. These additives may contain toxic contaminants resulting from their manufacturing process, such as glycidyl esters. In our study, these contaminants were found at concerning levels in six of the seven products tested containing this additive.

We also recommend avoiding “diet” or “light” products unless specifically advised by a healthcare professional. These products often contain artificial sweeteners associated with numerous health concerns, and whose long-term effects on weight management appear unfavorable³⁶.

More broadly, we encourage consumers to prioritize whole or minimally processed foods whenever possible. Products with long ingredient lists are often ultra-processed foods that are more likely to contain controversial additives (see our report on ultra-processed foods). Conversely, short and understandable ingredient lists are a simple and practical way to help reduce exposure to these substances.

Our recommendations for the Food and Drug Administration

1) Establish a clear and transparent risk assessment methodology

First, the FDA should establish and publish a clear and transparent methodology for assessing the risks of food additives, similar to the approach used by the EFSA in Europe³⁷. Today, the absence of a detailed and accessible methodological framework limits understanding of the criteria used to determine the safety of these substances.

Greater transparency is also essential. The FDA should systematically publish the risk assessments conducted on all food additives in order to foster open, independent, and evidence-based scientific debate, while also ensuring that consumers and manufacturers have better access to information regarding the safety of these substances.

In addition, the methodology used to establish and revise Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) should also be made fully transparent and publicly available. It should incorporate the full body of toxicological evidence through a rigorous weight-of-evidence approach, including human epidemiological studies. Such studies are particularly important for identifying health effects that may emerge over the long term at low levels of exposure, especially chronic diseases, which remain insufficiently considered in current risk assessment frameworks.

2) Regularly reassess the safety of food additives

The safety of food additives should also be regularly reassessed in light of scientific advances. Many recent studies highlight potential effects that were not taken into account during the initial evaluations, particularly regarding the gut microbiome, metabolism, and neurological development^38-40.

Such reassessments must rely on robust quantitative risk assessment, incorporating both a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and a precise estimation of population exposure. Reviewing only a few isolated studies is not sufficient.

The report published in 2021 by the OEHHA on food colorings and neurobehavioral effects in children illustrates this limitation clearly¹⁴. The agency notes that the FDA evaluated these colorings, including Red 40, in the 1970s without ever conducting a comprehensive risk reassessment since then. Instead, the FDA reviewed only two clinical trials examining the behavioral effects of food colorings in children. In 2011, the agency acknowledged that some children may be sensitive to these substances, while concluding that the available data did not justify revising the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for Red 40, established in 1971⁴¹. However, according to the OEHHA, this conclusion is based on an overly limited analysis of the available evidence. The agency emphasizes that the FDA did not take into account the full body of recent animal toxicology studies or the mechanistic in vitro data accumulated over recent decades. Following a comprehensive risk reassessment, the OEHHA concluded that the “current ADIs may not provide adequate protection from neurobehavioral impacts in children.” In other words, the thresholds currently considered “safe” may in reality fail to adequately protect children.

Food additive safety reassessments should also be systematic and proactive rather than occurring only after years of public pressure. Today, citizen petitions are often the only mechanism available to request that the FDA reevaluate the safety of an additive. Yet this system is deeply inadequate: most petitions remain unanswered, and when the FDA does act, the process often takes decades.

This is precisely what happened with BHT. A petition requesting that the FDA reevaluate its potential carcinogenicity was submitted in 1977, yet the agency did not announce plans for a new safety review until May 2026, 49 years later^42,43.

This approach is clearly insufficient. We call for systematic and timely reassessments of food additives already on the market, grounded in the latest scientific evidence and conducted within reasonable timeframes to ensure consumers are adequately protected.
In this regard, the European Union has implemented a systematic reassessment program for all additives authorized before 2009. Since then, 244 food additive evaluations have been updated to reflect the latest scientific evidence⁴⁴.

3) Better regulate the use of additives according to product categories

There is a need for stronger oversight of how additives are used across different product categories. An additive used in decorative frosting consumed occasionally does not raise the same level of concern as the same additive found in breakfast cereals consumed daily by millions of children and adults, and which account for up to 10% of daily energy intake according to several studies analyzing Americans’ dietary habits in 2013-2014⁴⁵.

Beverages also represent another particularly sensitive category, as compounds consumed in liquid form are more readily absorbed by the body.

4) Better take into account the specific vulnerabilities of children

Risk assessments must also better account for the specific characteristics of children, including their dietary habits, lower body weight, and increased vulnerability to certain health effects.

This concern has already been raised in relation to Red 40 and neurobehavioral effects such as hyperactivity and attention disorders, but it may also apply more broadly to growth, cognitive development, and the balance of the gut microbiome.

5) Close the regulatory loophole created by GRAS status

The regulatory loophole associated with GRAS (“Generally Recognized as Safe”) status, which currently allows manufacturers to introduce new substances into food without any genuine independent assessment of health risks, must be closed.

The FDA should no longer permit the use of new food additives unless a comprehensive and independent quantitative risk assessment has been conducted by experts appointed by the agency. This assessment should establish levels of use that are protective of human health and ensure that no serious scientific uncertainty remains regarding potential risks to consumers.

👉 See Consumer Report’s investigation

Scientific analysis by Eric Boring, Sana Mujahid, James Rogers, PhD of Consumer Reports and Zoé Kerlo, toxicologist at Yuka.