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 | Jul 14, 2025 | Main Blog, Advocacy & Action, Policy & Power |
By Linda Wulf â Cancer Thriver, Advocate, and Researcher
The Moment It Changed: Standard Cancer Protocols
Understanding the implications of Standard Cancer Protocols is essential for informed decision-making in cancer treatment.
It happened on a quiet hospital night in January 2024. I was sitting in my room at the Mayo Clinic, still recovering from another high-dose methotrexate infusion. The side effects were accumulatingâbrain fog, weakness, and immune depletionâbut the unease that grew inside me wasnât just physical. It was something deeper. Something first instinctual and then institutional.
That night, I opened my laptop and typed a question into ChatGPT: âWho writes the guidelines for central nervous system lymphoma?â
The answer came back quickly: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)âa non-profit alliance of elite cancer centers across the United States that produces the protocols used in nearly every major institution. The same guidelines that were directing my care.
These Standard Cancer Protocols, while systematic, may not always consider individual patient histories.
But when I visited the NCCN website that night, something unexpected appeared. At the top of the guidelines submission page, I saw the names AbbVie Medical, Genentech, and Pfizer. The wording implied that these companies werenât just supporters but gatekeepersâpositioned to influence which drugs made it into the standard of care, long after the research was done and the manufacturing complete. Moments later, the page shiftedâreplaced by a list of credentialed researchers from major institutions like Stanford, Harvard, and the Mayo Clinic. But that fleeting glimpse revealed a deeper truth: the protocols steering my care appeared, if only briefly, to answer to industry interestsânot to independent science.1
That was the decisive moment that changed for me.
When the Disconnect Became Clear
My decision to walk away didnât begin with ChatGPT, or NCCN, or even the protocols. It started weeks earlier, on December 5, 2023, when I first heard the phrase âinoperable but treatable.â I remember writing in my journal that day and feeling something crack: a disconnect between what I knew about nature, healing, and inflammationâand what the doctors were saying. They told me this cancer had no cause, just bad luck. But Iâd lived with chronic dental infection, which was active at this time. I knew my bodyâs story. What they were offering wasnât hope; it was protocol and a lifetime of medical support required to deal with the lingering side effects of the recommended treatment.
Standard Cancer Protocols often omit discussions about underlying conditions that may contribute to cancer.
That moment I realized how deeply pharmaceutical companies were tied to the very guidelines directing my care, it didnât spark the decision. It confirmed it.
A Rare Diagnosisâand Rare Consent
My cancerâPrimary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL)âis considered rare. That label triggered a specific sequence of events: a diagnosis fast-tracked into treatment, multiple high-risk drugs, and a deeply standardized regimen. What I didnât fully understand at the time was that many of the drugs in this protocol were either off-label or experimental.
- Temozolomide was part of my treatment. Yet itâs not FDA-approved for PCNSL. Worse, itâs known to deplete lymphocytesâthe very cells I needed to heal.
- I had severe reactions to Rituximab (violent immune response), Leucovorin (poor tolerance), and Vancomycin (triggered an allergic flag).
- The NCCN guidelines I was given 12 different clinical trials recommended and had one brief phrase about healthy living.
At no point did anyone stop to ask why I had this cancerâwhat my body had been exposed to, whether my long-standing dental infection, systemic inflammation, or chemical sensitivities played a role. Instead, I was swept into the treatment protocol: no pause, no curiosity, and no exploration of root causes.
I felt trapped within the confines of Standard Cancer Protocols without thorough exploration of alternatives.
But hereâs the thing: I now believe I may have been part of a clinical trial. No one told me that explicitlyâand I donât recall signing anything obviousâbut I canât rule it out. And thatâs the deeper issue: in the world of rare disease, âinformed consentâ often dissolves into vague paperwork and automatic enrollment.
The Orphan Drug and Rare Disease Loophole
My diagnosis â Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL), qualifies as a rare disease under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 and the Rare Diseases Act of 2002, laws enacted to spur research and development for conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 Americans (the threshold for ârareâ under the ODA).
The rules surrounding Standard Cancer Protocols can create barriers to personalized care.
The intention was noble. The outcome? More slippery.
Drugs approved under these acts are often:
-
- Benefit from flexible FDA approval standards, like smaller trials or surrogate endpoints.
- Receive tax credits of up to 25% for clinical trial costs;
- Access competitive federal grants from FDA and NIH, ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions;
The benefits of Standard Cancer Protocols are often touted, but patients should be aware of the potential risks involved.
- Waive FDA user fees, saving companies millions per application;
- Gain seven years of market exclusivity for the orphan useâeven for off-patent drugs.
In practice, this allows companies to profit from drugs integrated into rare disease protocols without necessarily demonstrating improved outcomes. And since guidelines like NCCNâs are developed by experts at institutions receiving funding from those same companies, the incentives form a tight circle.
According to their own 2020â2023 patient guidelines, the NCCNâs recommendations are based largely on expert opinion and trial availabilityânot robust long-term outcomes. Even the most recent protocols continue to suggest clinical trials and immunochemotherapy combinations while failing to acknowledge root causes or preventative strategies.
Patients need to critically assess the Standard Cancer Protocols being recommended to them.
I wasnât just a patient. I was a participant in a commercial enterprise.
The Economics of âStandard of Careâ
One look at my Mayo Clinic itemized bill told the other half of the story. The pharmaceutical reimbursement rates are staggeringâRituximab was billed at nearly $13,000 per dose. Leucovorin: over $400 per vial. Temozolomide and Vancomycin were also priced at a premium.
Understanding the cost implications of Standard Cancer Protocols can be enlightening for patients.
But it wasnât just the cost. It was the pattern.
These were the exact drugs I reacted poorly toâtriggering violent immune responses, allergic reactions, or systemic crashes. And the manufacturers? Genentech for Rituximab. Pfizer for Vancomycin and Leucovorin. Merck and generic suppliers for Temozolomide. Ironicallyâor perhaps notâGenentech and Pfizer were among the names that briefly appeared at the top of the NCCN guidelines page that night.
The array of drugs within Standard Cancer Protocols can vary greatly between treatment centers.
These werenât just medications. They were products in a pipelineâand I was part of the distribution system.
- Legal
- All of it codified
- None of it is transparent
The 2022 NCCN Form 990 shows over $23 million in revenue, with âeducational grantsâ from pharmaceutical firms and corporate âsupportersâ often tied to the drugs featured in their guidelines. Their own foundation, which funds emerging cancer researchers, lists Genentech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Servier as major supporters.
The incentives are clear. But for the patient, itâs a blur of white coats and urgencyâimpossible to distinguish scientific rigor from sales strategy.
Standard Cancer Protocols may not always align with the latest research and findings in oncology.
What I Did Instead
In January 2024, I made the choice to step off the conveyor belt. It wasnât out of fear. It was out of awareness. I turned toward a different path: one grounded in whole-body healing and immune system restoration. My approach included:
Choosing to step away from Standard Cancer Protocols was a pivotal moment in my healing journey.
Root cause elimination, resolving the chronic dental infection with holistic practices such as:
-
- Breathwork and nervous system retraining
- Extended fasting to trigger autophagy and metabolic reset
- Clean nutrition and mitochondrial support
- Daily detoxification through sauna and exercise,
These elements of care help illustrate what is often missing from Standard Cancer Protocols: patient-centered approaches.
- Elimination of all endocrine-disrupting chemicals in consumed products.
Was it scary to walk away from a world-renowned protocol? Yes. But what was scarier was not asking questions.
What the Data Says Now
Seventeen months after rejecting standard chemotherapy, my most recent MRI (June 2025) showed:
âNo masses. No new white matter abnormalities. No active disease.â
The results I experienced stand in stark contrast to what is typically expected from Standard Cancer Protocols.
Iâm not claiming that breathwork cured me. Iâm not suggesting that fasting is a magic bullet. But I am saying this: The system I walked away from didnât acknowledge what I now believe was driving my illness. And the healing Iâve experienced didnât come from the protocol. It came from reclaiming agency.
My journey underscores the importance of questioning Standard Cancer Protocols as a patient.
Why Iâm Telling You This
Because Iâm not alone.
Thousands of patients are being routed into systems that serve drug development, not true recovery. If you are facing a diagnosisâespecially a rare oneâask who benefits. Ask whether your protocol is backed by long-term remission data or short-term pharmaceutical incentives. Ask why root causes are rarely explored.
Awareness of the limitations of Standard Cancer Protocols can empower patients to seek better outcomes.
You are not a diagnosis. You are not a data point. You are not their bottom line.
It was clear the site format was in transition; perhaps I had caught it mid-update.Â
Ultimately, navigating the complexities of Standard Cancer Protocols requires vigilance and inquiry.
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)
