by Linda Wulf | Aug 15, 2025 | Main Blog |
Content Warning:
This essay discusses cancer, medical trauma and contains strong language, which may be triggering.
Spoiler Alert of Brain Cancer
Iâm absolutely fineâbetter than ever, actually. Older, yes, and certain Iâll die one dayâbut not from brain cancer, not from the treatments, and definitely not anytime soon. No, it wasnât a misdiagnosis, and yes, contrary to popular opinion, the body can heal itself.
Itâs been a wild ride since December 3, 2023, when I scribbled in my journal: âSitting at Mayo, expecting a brain tumor diagnosis.â In those early days, my thoughts were simple. When your brainâs a mess, articulating whatâs happening is tough. But for caretakers of someone who seems impaired, trust me: we hear everything. I heard my husband mumbling about my outbursts, the doctor saying, âThat doesnât make sense,â and me, unable to clarify.
Two days later, on December 5, 2023, I journaled:
The tumor was inoperable but treatable. Chemotherapy could stop its progression. We awaited pathology reports.
Countless testsâMRIs, PET scans, biopsies, blood drawsâled to the diagnosis: Primary CNS DLBCLâCentral Nervous System Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. Grok, an AI assistant, summarizes: Itâs a rare (1,500â1,700 cases yearly), aggressive lymphoma, treated with methotrexate. Five-year survival is 30â50%.
The prognosis felt bleak, but I was relievedâso relievedâit wasnât Alzheimerâs, unlike my mom and five aunts. It explained my struggles: botched recipes, car crashes, hallucinations. Iâd watched my parents dieâAlzheimerâs, Parkinsonâsâand vowed Iâd rather drop dead than linger in a nursing home, medicated into oblivion.
My husband, Tim, faced the awful choiceâguided by experts in a life-or-death rush. On November 27, 2023, after a family interventionâTim and my stepson, Andrew, all but carrying me to MayoâI arrived disoriented, albeit clearer from antibiotics started days earlier for a chronic dental infection, battled with quarterly visits for three decades. Over 13 days, Mayo was my universe: MRIs, CT scans, brain biopsy, spinal taps, EEGs, blood draws. Antibiotics tackled the infection; steroids calmed brain inflammation. It made senseâclear the infection, shrink the swelling and stabilize the chaos.
By December 8, methotrexate began, a Primary CNS DLBCL standard, but the protocols stopped making sense to me. On December 18, I dug into PubMed, emailing Dr. Mrugala a study on titanium implant neurotoxicity and CNS Lymphoma1, suspecting my 2011 dental implant. No reply. On December 21, a facial CT scanâlikely from my complaintsâwent nowhere. When I demanded a titanium blood test, a resident shrugged, âWhat would we do with that? We donât do teeth.â In my foggy mind, I thought, âCanât you see the connection between my lymph system and my inflamed gums, inches away?
During downtime, I reflected on vomiting incidentsâfirst beer, first cigarette, and years ago, nearly puking entering a church Iâd run from, a gut-punch rejection of something that felt wrong. My body knew poison, chemical or not. On my first day of at-home chemotherapy, I took temozolomide (Temodar) without anti-nausea medsâthinking I could tough it out. Within minutes, I was lying on the bathroom floor or hugging the toilet, vomiting.
The tileâs coolness eased the retching; my thoughts spiraled: I canât do this. Why didnât I call friends with cancer? I suck for being a bad friend. Thank God for temozolomide. Iâd been giving thanks for everything, good or bad. Days later, an epiphany: RAT BASTARDS! Anti-nausea pills masked temozolomideâs poison. I researched and learned temozolomideâunproven for lymphoma, meant for glioblastoma, with claims it could âget past the blood-brain barrierââcould wreck my lymphocytes. That dissolving sensation in my head from that chemotherapy week? Iâd feel it again 72 hours into my first fast to induce neural autophagy.
I stopped temozolomide after that week, but methotrexate lingered. On January 17, 2024, I arrived for my fourth in-hospital methotrexate, defiant, wanting my teeth fixed. My husband, terrified of losing me, insisted I listen to the experts. Reluctantly, I went but refused anti-nausea meds to let my body react. Dr. Walker, a young resident, implied Iâd lost my mind, suggesting my cognitive functions were impaired. I challenged him to check my recent cognitive tests. I didnât want to be tossed out of Mayo or âdivorcedâ from Dr. Mrugala, one of the worldâs best. What if I was wrong about my teeth and the tumor returned? Iâd lose precious time.
So, I let my guard down and shared my vomiting insightsâcigarettes, alcohol, that church moment. An hour later, the neuro-oncology team gathered, eyeing me like a wild card: Dr. Mrugala, head of neuro-oncology, smiled curiously; the floor doctor, a sharp Jewish woman in her 30s, insisted I not puke on her floor; Dr. Walker stood with them, having listened. I held up my âFEAR NOTâ vision, my mantra since November:
âWE are fearfully and wonderfully made2.â
âAnd F*!# cancer!
âItâs my teethâyou donât see it? One last methotrexate, then I fix my teeth.â On January 21, 2024, I stopped all chemo. I ordered a $119 titanium blood test through Request A Test3, which confirmed traces of titanium, though nothing else. On February 2, 2024, my dentist confirmed an ongoing infection in my problematic tooth, fueling my resolve. My next essay, âPower in the Blood,â reveals how I stumbled into healing through breath.
Notes
by Linda Wulf | Jul 21, 2025 | Main Blog |
Realizing the Chemical Load
About this time last yearâJuly 2024âI started doing one of those strange and sobering things people do when they begin consciously preparing for the end: clearing out clutter, sorting through forgotten corners of the house, and asking what matters. That beautiful July day, I found myself sorting through my stuff, trying to make things easier for whoever might someday have to deal with itâasking: What to keep? What to toss? Why do I even have this?
While scanning my shelves for books I could let go of, I paused at a volume that had followed me through several moves. I had boxed it up and shipped it west over a decade earlier from my motherâs house, when I was helping her relocate for what would be her final days. She passed in 2014, but the book had remained unread on my shelves ever sinceâuntil now, when I was beginning to contemplate my own demise.
The book was titled Du Pont: The Autobiography of an American Enterprise, published in 1952 to commemorate the companyâs 150th anniversary. Inside was a mimeographed letter addressed to my mom, who had worked in Du Pontâs advertising department that year.
What ultimately caught my attention wasnât the corporate history but a curious image printed on page 5: the âBill of Mortality for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for A.D. 1802.â A stark ledger of the 152 people who died that year in a small New England city. The typed and handwritten entries listed causes of death from âAphthaâ to âSuicide,â and I found myself drawn inânot just by the details, but by the contrast to now. What were we dying from then, compared to today?
Figure 1: Bill of Mortality, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 1802, printed in DuPont: The Autobiography of an American Enterprise (1952), showing 152 deaths, mostly from infectious diseases like cholera, measles, and whooping cough. Only three cancer cases were noted, with minimal neurological mentions.
As I studied the faded image, the differences were profound. In 1802, only three deaths were attributed to cancer and none to heart diseaseâconditions that today account for nearly half of all U.S. deaths. Neurological illnesses were also uncommon, with just twelve cases listed under older terms like âapoplexy,â âepilepsy,â and âpalsy.â Instead, the ledger was filled with infectious threats: measles, cholera, whooping cough, and dysentery.
Of the 152 total deaths recorded in Portsmouth that year, 50 were children under the age of 15, including six premature births. In a world with no antibiotics, no vaccines, and poor sanitation, the greatest threat to life was microbialânot metabolic. Chronic illness was rare, and survival into old age, while possible, was far from guaranteed.
By the 1930s, the landscape of death had shifted dramatically. Infectious diseases that once dominated life had been largely tamed by antibiotics, vaccines, clean water systems, and public health reforms. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drugs Act was passed, and enforcement was assigned to the Bureau of Chemistryâthe early predecessor to todayâs FDA. It wasnât until 1930 that the modern Food and Drug Administration was officially named. These were triumphs. Life expectancy rose. The killers of 1802 were, it seemed, under control.
But as I lingered over that 1802 ledger, a different question came into focus: If weâd conquered those ancient plagues, why are we now dying from cancer, heart disease, and neurological disorders at rates unimaginable two centuries ago?
Thatâs When It Hit Me
We had traded one threat for another. Microbes for molecules. Today, the average American body is exposed to thousands of synthetic chemicalsâevery single day. And not in trace amounts. These are in our food, our packaging, our personal care products, our medicine cabinetsâeven the supplements we take to “stay healthy.” Unlike the short, violent threat of infection, this chemical load accumulatesâquietly, invisiblyâuntil something breaks.
As I began researching what became my article, The Toxic Web, I discovered the scale of the problem: 7,157 unique chemicals are actively used across FDA databases for food, drugs, packaging, and personal care products. Many have never undergone a meaningful safety review. Others were grandfathered in decades ago under loopholes like GRASâ”Generally Recognized as Safe”âwhich allow companies to self-certify ingredients without oversight.
And so my âahaâ moment wasnât just academicâit was personal. I realized: this is what weâre up against now.
So I made a change. A real one. I stopped waiting for someone to protect me. I eliminated every unnecessary chemical I could findâstarting with my plate and my shower. No additives. No preservatives. No medications, over the counter or otherwise unless there was a clear, tested need. No more synthetic lotions, no more ânaturalâ products with mystery ingredients. I cleaned up what went in and what went on.
This wasnât a rejection of science. It was a return to balance. A conscious choice to stop feeding the silent storm brewing inside me.
Once I understood the scale of the chemical load weâre all living under, I began to do something both radical and simple: I started paying attention.
Not in a paranoid way. In a quiet, curious way. I began watching my bodyâcloselyâfor how it responded to chemicals. I had downloaded the Yuka app months before, but now I was more aggressive, scanning every label I could find. What was in my lotion? My shampoo? My toothpaste? My almond butter? Every product had a backstoryâoften a toxic one. Most people around me assumed that if it was on a shelf, it must be safe. But I had stopped believing that. And what I started noticing confirmed my doubts.
Let Me Share with You One Moment in Particular
It was my granddaughter Bexlyâs birthday, August 3, 2024. I went to her party trying to strike the balance Iâd been practicingâavoiding additives without being a pain. I donât want to be the crazy âLolaâ who wonât eat anything. So that evening, I skipped the bottled salad dressing (most contain endocrine disruptors), had a little bit of salad greens knowing it might carry some pesticide residue, and then joined in the celebration: Papa Murphyâs pizza and a slice of commercially prepared birthday cakeâfrosted in its cotton-candy-colored glory.
I felt fine that night. It was so goodâI hadnât indulged in a sweet cake treat in months. But the next morning at 7 a.m., I stood up and was completely surprised by what happened. I jumped up and immediately realized my balance was completely off. The room was shaky. I wasnât dizzy in the usual senseâI was disoriented. My equilibrium had collapsed. It took until nearly 1 p.m. before I started feeling normal again, like I could walk without tripping or falling.
In hindsight, I realized I had experienced a delayed neurotoxic response. The vivid dyes in that cake frostingâlike Red 40 and Blue 1âare flagged by Yuka and others as neurotoxic and endocrine-disrupting. My nervous system had taken the hit. That incident wasnât a flukeâit was my bodyâs response to the tiny bit of neurotoxins in that cake.
It occurred to me at that moment that maybe doctors shouldnât just ask us âold folksâ if weâre feeling off balanceâthey should be asking what kind of birthday cake we ate last night.
From that point on, I became meticulous and diligent about noticing. I cut out unnecessary chemicals wherever I couldâditching synthetic lotions, shampoos, and soaps. I had stopped taking supplements years earlier, after watching a close friend rapidly decline from glioblastoma. I couldnât help but wonder whether the concentrated compounds sheâd taken in an effort to âstay healthyâ had, ironically, hastened her decline. It was only a hunchâbut strong enough to change my behavior at the time.
I buy organic whenever possible. I practiced delayed eatingâ12 to 14 hours regularly. And I paid close attention to my own reactionsâespecially to subtle shifts: dry eyes, brain fog, mood changes, and fatigue. These became signals. Data points. Feedback.
This wasnât about fear. It was about awarenessâthe act of noticing of listening to a body that had been shouting all along but had gone unheard.
And still, I live. I go out. I laugh with friends. I eat in restaurantsâcarefully. I donât let vigilance turn into obsession. But now, I live by one rule: if I can avoid it, I will.
Because once you start noticing, you canât unsee it. And once your body shows you the cost, you stop pretending the price is acceptable.
So thatâs where Iâll leave thisâfor now. Just notice. Start there. Your body might be saying more than you think. Mine was.
by Linda Wulf | Jun 28, 2025 | Main Blog |
Data-backed remission after stopping chemotherapy. Breath, fasting, whole-food nutrition, and chemical-free living proved more than supportiveâthey may have been the key.
When I was diagnosed with primary CNS lymphoma in November 2023, I faced what medicine typically labels a grim prognosis. The lesionâdeep in the corpus callosumâwas declared inoperable. I underwent four chemotherapy sessions between December and January, but after reviewing the risks, the lack of testing for my cancer type, and the impact on my immune system, I made a different decision.
I stopped chemotherapy in January 2024âCancer Recovery.
The decision to stop chemotherapy was a pivotal moment in my journey towards Cancer Recovery. I realized that taking control of my health was essential in my fight against this disease.
Since that time, Iâve followed a non-traditional but carefully reasoned path: breathwork, fasting, whole-food nutrition, and chemical-free living. It wasnât about rejecting scienceâit was about asking the kind of questions science hasnât yet fully answered.
Seventeen months later, the data is in: I remain stable, symptom-free, and stronger than ever.
Embracing a holistic approach, I discovered that each aspect of my lifestyle contributed to my Cancer Recovery. Breathwork, nutrition, and more became part of my healing process.
The Scans Tell the Story
Here is what my medical records show:
- November 28, 2023 (Mayo Clinic): A large tumor in the corpus callosum, likely CNS lymphoma, measuring nearly 5 cm.
- January 4, 2024: Scan taken during chemotherapy cycle shows âsignificantly decreased zone of T2 signal abnormality.â
- February 17, 2024: Continued improvement with âmoderately decreased enhancement.â
- April 13, 2024: Mild residual lesion; no new abnormalities.
- July 17, 2024: No residual contrast enhancement. Described as âlikely secondary to treated lymphoma.â
- October 30, 2024 ( non-contrast): Mild increase in brain signal noted, though no IV contrast was used to confirm active enhancement. I believe this was likely related to a dental infection that had not yet fully resolved.**
- June 19, 2025 (most recent): Stable post-biopsy changes. No masses. No new white matter signal abnormalities. No active disease.
- Since January 2024, Iâve had zero chemotherapyâand no confirmed tumor progression. This was clinically reaffirmed by my June 2025 MRI: no progression, no enhancement, no active disease.
** The October scanâwhile initially concerningâaligned with an ongoing dental issue. I had undergone a new implant procedure on June 12, 2024; the implant was noted to be loose by late June. On August 7, 2024, the implant was removed and infection was again confirmed. In hindsight, I believe the October scan reflected my body’s immune response to this lingering infection, not cancer progression.
What Changed: A Different Protocol
Instead of continuing chemotherapy beyond four sessions, I took a different path based on four key interventions:
Breathwork
What began as a spiritual practice became, unexpectedly, a therapeutic tool grounded in measurable outcomes. I began practicing deep breathing on my ownâlargely freestyle but similar in rhythm to box breathingâwell before I ever read James Nestorâs book. Months later, I discovered Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art and realized that some of his recommended techniques closely mirrored what I was already doing. His book outlines several scientifically supported methods.
I particularly recommend readers explore the breath-holding techniques and gentle head movements that, in my experience, seem to facilitate lymph fluid movement in the neck and head. These complemented practices like Wim Hofâs method, Buteyko breathing, and the protocols discussed across several episodes of Andrew Hubermanâs podcast. Each episode covers different techniques with scientific depthâfocusing on oxygen efficiency, tolerance, vagus nerve stimulation, and nervous system regulation. What started as a spiritual ritual morphed into biochemical experiments for me.
Breathwork may have done more than support my immune systemâit helped eliminate something deeper. Iâve long believed my cancer originated from a chronic dental infection. Initially when I arrived at Mayo, I was given heavy antibiotics. Before I finalized the decision to leave chemotherapy, I visited my periodontist. It was during that visit that I began to realize that the breathwork had started to address the chronic aspect of the infectionâits deep, embedded toxicityâwas finally beginning to resolve itself. I now believe breathwork played a pivotal role in helping my body push out what had been stuck for decades.
The integration of various practices played a significant role in my Cancer Recovery. I learned how addressing every facet of health could lead to remarkable outcomes.
Fasting & Autophagy
Early in the journey, inspired by physicians like Dr. Pradeep Jamnadas, I used intermittent and extended fasting to stimulate autophagy and mitophagyâmechanisms that promote the cleanup of damaged or malfunctioning cells, supporting neurological repair and systemic healing. Longer fastsâespecially those lasting 48â72 hoursâhave been shown to protect hematopoietic stem cells and promote immune system regeneration by reducing IGF-1 and PKA signaling, even reversing chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression (Hine & Mitchell, 2014).
Whole-Food Nutrition
While fasting gave my cells time to clean house, the fuel they used had to be clean. I focused on nutrient-dense whole foodsâorganic vegetables, fruits, eggs, and lean proteins. I eliminated processed foods and refined sugars entirely. It was simple: if it wasnât real, I didnât eat it. That included so-called âhealthâ products like supplements and protein powders  â because no matter how well-marketed, [they] are not real food. The energy mitochondria produce depends on the quality of the food we give them. No energy in, no healing out.
Chemical-Free Living
The more I learn, the less I consume. Well before my diagnosis, I had eliminated synthetic vitamins. At the time I was diagnosised I eliminated all sugar and anything I believed might interfere with healing. But over the past year, my awareness of endocrine-disrupting chemicalsâin foods, packaging, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, over the counter drugs and household environmentsâhas deepened. Today, I actively work to eliminate those chemicals from every part of my life. This late-stage realization has become essential to sustaining health and reducing cellular stress. I now view chemical-free living not as a preference, but as a foundation for long-term healing and resilience.
By minimizing toxins, I enhanced my bodyâs ability to pursue Cancer Recovery. This awareness was crucial in my journey towards optimal health.
Challenging the Protocol
The standard treatment for primary CNS lymphoma typically includes high-dose methotrexate and, in some cases, temozolomide (Temodar). But as I discovered through lived experience, many of the drugs prescribed for rare cancersâespecially aggressive brain tumorsâare experimental in nature, even if that fact isnât always clearly communicated.
Temozolomide, for instance, is not FDA-approved for primary CNS lymphoma, yet it was included in my regimen. It is well-documented to deplete lymphocytesâthe very immune cells my body needed to recover and defend itself. I had a violent reaction to it and stopped taking it almost immediately.
I also experienced severe or adverse responses to several other medications: rituximab, which triggered a dangerous reaction; leucovorin, which left me deeply depleted; and vancomycin, which led to an official allergy designation. At the time, I may have been told that some of these drugs were off-label or non-standardâbut I canât say I fully grasped the implications. In hindsight, I realize I had entered a protocol where trial-and-error was the norm.
And thatâs the quiet truth few patients with rare diseases are told: we are often enrolled in real-time drug experimentation without the benefit of fully informed consent.
Eventually, I chose to step away. I stopped participating in the cycle. I chose to listen to my body, my scans, and my experience.
And the results have spoken for themselves.
This Isnât Just PersonalâItâs a Call to Reassess
This journey is not just personal; it represents a collective need for change in the approach to Cancer Recovery. We must explore all avenues available to us.
There is a need for brave questioning within modern oncology. Iâm not claiming breath cures cancer. Iâm not suggesting fasting alone eradicates tumors. But I am saying this: the body has capacities we ignoreâand when supported properly, they can change outcomes in ways that donât yet fit into standard charts.
Through my personal experience, I advocate for a broader understanding of Cancer Recovery. Thereâs a wealth of knowledge in our bodies that deserves exploration.
Iâm stable. Iâm thriving. And my last MRI shows no signs of tumor activity 17 months after stopping chemotherapy. If that doesnât warrant investigation, what does?
This is not medical advice, nor a recommendation to abandon treatment. It is a lived account of one personâs experienceâand an invitation to question what we think we know.
References:
- Huberman Lab Podcast: https://www.hubermanlab.com â multiple episodes explore breathwork physiology; I recommend browsing to find what speaks to you.
- Nestor, James. Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art. Riverhead Books, 2020.
- Hof, Wim. The Wim Hof Method. Sounds True, 2020.
- Buteyko Clinic: https://buteykoclinic.com
- Jamnadas, Pradeep. Galen Foundation. https://www.galenfoundation.org
YouTube Video Fasting for Survival
- Russell, R., et al. âAutophagy regulation by nutrient signaling.â Cell Research, 2014.
https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2013166
- Hine, C., & Mitchell, J. R. (2014). Saying no to drugs: Fasting protects hematopoietic stem cells from chemotherapy and aging. Cell Stem Cell, 14(6), 704â705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.05.016
- US Food & Drug Administration. TEMODAR (temozolomide) Prescribing Information, Schering-Plough/Merck, 2016.
by Linda Wulf | Jun 10, 2025 | Chemical Exposure Unleashed, Main Blog |
Introduction: A Personal Awakening
I once believed that products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were safe for use. But after my own battle with cancer, that illusion shattered. With the help of Grok AI and Chatbot GTP, I discovered that 7,157 unique chemicalsâmany of them untested or inadequately reviewedâpersist in our food, drugs, packaging, and personal care products. This article is not just a critique of the FDAâs structure and oversightâit is a call for reform grounded in lived experience, regulatory history, and emerging science.
The FDAâs Flawed Governance: Overlapping Databases
The FDAâs governance is riddled with fragmentation, weak authority, and a troubling reliance on industry self-regulation. Responsibilities are split among the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and a lightly managed oversight of cosmetics. The agency functions more like a passive archive for industry-submitted documents than an active safety watchdog.
The cornerstone of this problem is the ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ (GRAS) process[1]. Originally intended to streamline approval of common food ingredients, GRAS allows substances to be deemed safe based on scientific evidence or expert consensus, often without FDA review. Today, companies can self-affirm safety by hiring their own experts, bypassing rigorous FDA oversight. Of the 3,970 substances in the FDAâs Substances Added to Food Database[2], roughly 3,670 have never undergone active FDA safety assessments.
Industry influence compounds the problem. From 1998 to 2025, the ultraprocessed food industry spent $1.4 billion lobbying, while pharmaceutical firms spent $6.3 billion. These efforts have blocked reformâmost notably the closure of the GRAS self-affirmation loophole[3], which remains open despite HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.âs March 2025 directive to eliminate it[1].
Historical Context and Regulatory Evolution
When the FDA was created in 1906 under the Pure Food and Drugs Act, the food supply contained few synthetic chemicals. The agency’s early mission focused on preventing adulteration and mislabeling. With the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA was empowered to conduct drug safety reviews. The 1958 Food Additives Amendment created the GRAS exemption[3], initially listing about 700 substances.
Over the decades, the GRAS process grew to include thousands of additional substances through self-affirmation. In 1997, a voluntary notification system further weakened FDAâs oversight. Parallel gaps in cosmetics, OTC drugs, and supplements evolved similarly. The result: 7,157 unique chemicals now permeate the U.S. consumer landscape, many without adequate federal oversight.
The Scale of Chemical Exposure
The FDA maintains several overlapping databases, each detailing different chemical categories:
- Substances Added to Food (3,970 substances): Includes sodium benzoate, which can form carcinogenic benzene when combined with ascorbic acid[4], and monocalcium phosphate, a leavening agent linked to health risks from high phosphorus intake[5].
- Inventory of Food Contact Substances (3,652 substances)[7].
- Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS): 451 entries (370 substances), including carrageenan, linked to inflammation and cancer risks[8].
- Inactive Ingredients Database (9,196 entries, 1,048 unique substances): Includes propylparaben, an endocrine disruptor[9].
- Dietary Supplement Label Database (205,782 labels): Includes ascorbic acid, which poses risks of overexposure in self-affirmed uses[10].
These databases often rely on industry data, not independent review, leaving Americans exposed to substances never meaningfully tested for long-term safety.
The Hidden Health Risks
Of the 7,157 unique chemicals in circulation, many are endocrine disruptorsâcompounds that interfere with hormonal systems[11]. These are linked to obesity, infertility, diabetes, and even cancer. Research suggests up to 20% of food additives may have endocrine-disrupting properties[12].
Notable examples:
- Propylparaben in drugs and lotions mimics estrogen and may impair reproductive health[13].
- Carrageenan used in food and toothpaste contributes to colitis and chronic inflammation[14].
- Sodium benzoate, still legal, may generate carcinogenic byproducts when paired with vitamin C[6].
Consumers often assume FDA approval means safety, but unless they dig into obscure databases or advocacy sites, theyâre unaware of these systemic risks.
Overlapping Oversight and Personal Care Risks
Personal care products pose unique risks. Ingredients like propylparaben, commonly found in creams and lotions, are absorbed through the skin. Despite their systemic impact, cosmetics remain under-regulated. No dedicated FDA database exists to track their safety, perpetuating exposure through regulatory neglect.
Seeking Transparency
For proactive consumers, tools exist but require effort. The Inactive Ingredients Database (IID)[9] and apps like Yuka[15] allow users to check ingredient profiles, but they lack plain-language risk summaries. Meaningful transparency will require integrating FDA databases into a single, user-friendly platform.
A Call for Comprehensive Reform
To protect public health, the FDA must:
- Consolidate CFSAN, CDER, and cosmetic oversight into one cohesive regulatory body.
- Eliminate GRAS self-affirmation and require FDA review of all safety claims.
- Limit industry lobbying and funding of research tied to regulatory decisions.
- Create a single, public database of all approved chemicals with searchable summaries.
- Despite evidence of harm, unsafe substances often remain in use for years due to slow regulatory action, perpetuating public health risks.
- Immediately restrict high-risk substances like Red No. 40[16], and propylparaben instead of phasing them out over the years.
Until reform arrives, Americans must become their own watchdogsâresearching the safety of food, medication, personal care products, and even their tap water.
by Linda Wulf | Mar 24, 2025 | Main Blog |
Imagine picking up a snack from the grocery shelfâcrackers, soda, or a candy bar. You scan the ingredients, spotting familiar names like sugar or salt, and maybe some tongue-twisters like “sodium benzoate” or “xanthan gum.” What you donât see is a quiet stamp of approval baked into U.S. law: “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or GRAS. Itâs a term most of us have never heard of, yet it governs thousands of substances in our food. Enshrined in regulation since 1958, GRAS was meant to keep us safe. But over decades, itâs morphed into a system so entrenched that weâre consuming additives dailyâsome of which might be silently harming us, and we donât even know it.
What Is GRAS?
GRAS stands for “Generally Recognized as Safe,” a designation created by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to classify food ingredients that donât need rigorous premarket testing. If a substance is widely accepted by qualified experts as safeâbased on scientific data or a long history of useâit gets the GRAS label and can go straight into your food. Think of it as a fast-pass lane: sugar, vinegar, and spices sailed through because theyâve been used forever, while new chemicals can qualify with enough expert agreement.
The idea sounds reasonableâwhy bog down the FDA with red tape for stuff everyone trusts? But hereâs the catch: GRAS isnât just a handful of pantry staples. Itâs thousands of additivesâflavorings, preservatives, thickenersâslipped into processed foods, from your morning cereal to your evening takeout. And as the system evolved, the question shifted from “Is this safe?” to “Whoâs even checking?”
How It Started: The 1958 Food Additives Amendment
Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) was born in a simpler time. Before the 1950s, the FDA had broad authority to police food safety, but the rise of synthetic chemicalsâthink artificial flavors and stabilizersâoverwhelmed the system. In 1958, Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demanding premarket approval for new additives unless they were GRAS. The law defined GRAS as substances “generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience,” as safe based on science or common use before 1958.
Back then, the FDA took the lead. Companies petitioned the agency to affirm ingredients like caffeine or citric acid as GRAS, and the FDA published its rulings in the Code of Federal Regulations. It was a manageable list, with the agency carefully vetting each substance. The goal? Protect consumers while letting innovation flow. For a while, it worked.
How It Evolved: From Oversight to Loophole
Fast-forward to the 1990s, and the cracks started showing. The FDA, swamped with petitions and short on resources, proposed a game-changer in 1997: ditch the formal affirmation process for a voluntary “notification” system. Companies could now self-affirm a substance as GRAS, send the FDA their safety data (or not), and start using it unless the agency objected. By 2016, this became official policy. The shift was seismicâoversight moved from the FDAâs desk to industry boardrooms.
The numbers tell the story. In the petition era, itâs estimated that fewer than 400 substances earned FDA-affirmed GRAS status, though exact figures are hard to confirm without historical records. Today, a database of GRAS substances downloaded in July 2024 lists exactly 3,972 entriesâcovering everything from vanilla extract to obscure flavorings like “(+/-)-2-Methyltetrahydrofuran-3-thiol Acetate.” These additives touch nearly every processed bite you take.
Enshrined in Law, Embedded in Our Lives
That 1958 amendment enshrined GRAS as a legal fixture, and its evolution has made it untouchable. Companies love itâno lengthy approvals, no mandatory FDA sign-off. The FDA leans on it too, stretched thin by budget cuts and a flood of new ingredients. But what about us, the eaters? Weâre left trusting a system where safety is assumed until proven otherwiseâsometimes decades too late.
Take partially hydrogenated oils, commonly known as trans fats: GRAS for years, they clogged arteries until science linked them to heart disease in the 1990s. The FDA didnât ban them until 2015, with a full phase-out by 2021â20 years of delay while we ate. Or consider caffeine-spiked alcoholic drinks like Four Loko, yanked in 2010 after ER visits spiked, yet similar combos still linger in loopholes. These arenât outliers; theyâre symptoms of a system that waits for harm to scream before it whispers “stop.”
The Unseen Cost
Hereâs the kicker: we donât know whatâs killing us because GRAS hides in plain sight. Some additivesâlike ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen, or alkanet root extract linked to liver toxicityâwere once deemed GRAS by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) but have since been stripped of that status due to safety concerns. Yet they may still linger in our food if companies self-affirm their safety because the FDAâs hands are tied. Worse, no one tracks how many of these 3,972 additives a body can absorb or what happens when they combineâlike drugs, they have effects that linger, burdening the bodyâs cleanup systems, yet theyâre tested in isolation, not as the chemical cocktail we consume.
This self-affirmation loophole even extends to the vitamin and supplement market, where untested compounds can slip into products we assume are safe. And thatâs just foodâadd in exposures from over-the-counter drugs, pharmaceuticals, and beauty products (which the FDA barely regulates, leaving safety to companies), and the disconnect grows: your body doesnât care about regulatory silos; it processes the total exposure.
Meanwhile, new scienceâlike the Human Microbiome Projectâs discoveries since 2007 showing how additives can disrupt gut bacteria linked to healthâreveals risks the sluggish GRAS system canât keep up with: how can regulation protect us when it lags decades behind what weâre learning about our bodies? Industry self-policing means no oneâs compelled to pull the plug until the evidence is overwhelming, and even then, itâs a slog. Weâre consuming a chemical cocktail daily, legally enshrined, and most of us donât even know what GRAS stands for.
Conclusion
This is just the beginning. GRAS started as a safeguard, evolved into a loophole, and now sits as a silent giant in our food system. Next time you grab a snack, ask yourself: who decided this was safeâand how long will it take to find out if they were wrong? More importantly, what is your body telling you?
Explore our curated resources for in-depth insights, expert guidance, and valuable tools to expand your knowledge and stay informed.
by Linda Wulf, with assistance from Grok (xAI)
