Site icon 60 Minutes Tonight

Generally Recognized as Safe: 60 Minutes Investigates the GRAS System Behind America’s Food Supply on August 9 2026

Ryan Gill

The August 9, 2026, edition of 60 Minutes revisits a question that reaches into almost every American kitchen: Who decides whether the ingredients added to food are safe?

In the updated encore segment “Generally Recognized as Safe,” correspondent Bill Whitaker examines the federal regulatory system known as GRAS, short for “Generally Recognized as Safe.” The designation may sound straightforward, but it sits at the center of a much larger debate over food additives, ultra-processed foods and the role the federal government should play in determining what can enter the American food supply.

Whitaker speaks with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. David Kessler, the former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Although the two men come from very different political and professional backgrounds, both have called for changes to the way certain substances in food are regulated.

The report, produced by Sarah Koch, airs as part of an encore edition of 60 Minutes on Sunday, August 9, from 7:00 to 8:00 PM ET/PT on CBS and Paramount+.

Generally Recognized As Safe; Youngest Survivors | 60 Minutes Full Episodes

What Does “Generally Recognized as Safe” Actually Mean?

The origins of the GRAS system stretch back nearly seven decades. Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, establishing a framework under which substances intentionally added to food generally require premarket approval from the FDA unless they qualify for an exemption, including because their use is generally recognized by qualified experts as safe.

There was a practical reason for creating an exemption. Regulators did not need to conduct an elaborate approval process every time manufacturers used familiar ingredients with long histories of consumption. The law recognized that certain substances could already have enough evidence or history behind them to establish their safety under their intended conditions of use.

The FDA subsequently developed lists of substances considered GRAS under particular conditions. However, the system evolved considerably over the decades. In 1997, the FDA proposed replacing a more resource-intensive GRAS affirmation petition process with a notification system.

That evolution is crucial to understanding the controversy explored by 60 Minutes. A manufacturer can reach its own conclusion that an intended use of a substance qualifies as GRAS. The debate is therefore not simply about whether particular additives are dangerous. It is also about who should carry the burden of proving that ingredients are safe and how much independent federal oversight should occur before those ingredients reach consumers.

Why the GRAS System Has Become Controversial

Critics have long argued that the system gives food and ingredient companies too much responsibility for evaluating their own products. GRAS substances are exempt from the premarket approval requirements that ordinarily apply to food additives, provided that the legal requirements for GRAS status are satisfied.

The controversy becomes particularly significant when a company makes an independent GRAS determination rather than seeking FDA review. Critics contend that this can create gaps in the government’s knowledge about what substances are entering the food supply and raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest when manufacturers or experts retained by manufacturers assess safety.

Supporters of the broader GRAS framework point to a different problem. Requiring the FDA to individually approve every substance used in food could create a substantial regulatory burden, including for substances with extensive histories of safe use. The original concept was therefore designed to distinguish genuinely new food additives requiring approval from substances whose safety was already widely accepted by qualified experts.

The dispute explored by 60 Minutes is consequently about more than eliminating a regulatory category. The larger question is whether a system created in the 1950s remains appropriate for the enormously different food industry of the 2020s.

The GRAS System Has Already Faced Major Reviews

Concerns about GRAS substances are not new. One of the most important earlier examinations followed questions raised during the Nixon administration.

In 1969, safety concerns led the FDA to remove cyclamate salts from its GRAS list. President Richard Nixon subsequently directed the agency to reexamine GRAS substances. During the 1970s, an outside scientific committee conducted extensive safety reviews.

The FDA’s historical database shows that the Select Committee on GRAS Substances, or SCOGS, produced 115 reports between 1972 and 1980 covering more than 370 substances.

That history provides important context for Whitaker’s report. The current debate is not the first time changing science and public concern have prompted questions about whether substances previously regarded as safe deserve another examination.

It also demonstrates an important principle of food regulation: a safety determination is not necessarily the end of scientific inquiry. New evidence, changing consumption patterns and new uses of ingredients can create questions that did not exist when earlier assessments were conducted.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Pushes Food Policy to the Forefront

Kennedy’s appearance in the segment comes amid a broader effort by his Department of Health and Human Services to change federal nutrition policy.

In July 2025, HHS, the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced an initiative seeking information that could help establish a uniform federal definition of ultra-processed foods. The agencies framed the effort around concerns about diet-related chronic disease and the role highly processed products play in the American diet.

The administration went further with the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released in January 2026. The guidelines emphasized what HHS described as “real food” while recommending limits on highly processed foods, added sugars and artificial additives.

Those policies place the subject of Whitaker’s 60 Minutes report within a much broader shift in Washington. Kennedy has made the composition of the American food supply one of the defining issues of his tenure at HHS.

The discussion is politically unusual because concern about additives and highly processed foods does not fall neatly along traditional partisan lines. Questions about ingredient transparency, chronic disease and food industry regulation have attracted interest from different parts of the political spectrum, even when there is substantial disagreement over Kennedy’s wider health policies.

David Kessler Brings Decades of FDA Experience

The presence of Dr. David Kessler adds another important dimension to the report.

Kessler served as FDA commissioner during the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. His involvement therefore gives the segment the perspective of a former leader of the agency responsible for administering federal food and drug law.

In the original 60 Minutes report, Kennedy indicated that the FDA would act on a citizen petition associated with Kessler seeking changes involving ultra-processed foods and the GRAS framework. Reporting at the time noted that the petition sought regulatory action involving sweeteners, including corn syrup, although Kennedy did not commit publicly to granting every element requested.

That makes the pairing of Kennedy and Kessler particularly notable. The discussion is not simply an outsider criticizing the FDA. It includes a former commissioner questioning whether aspects of the regulatory framework are sufficient for the modern food environment.

Their concerns also illustrate how the GRAS debate intersects with the separate, but related, debate over ultra-processed foods.

GRAS and Ultra-Processed Foods Are Not the Same Thing

One distinction is particularly important when watching the 60 Minutes report: GRAS and “ultra-processed” are not interchangeable terms.

GRAS is a regulatory concept dealing with the safety status of particular uses of substances in food. Ultra-processed food, by contrast, is a broader way of categorizing foods according to their formulation and degree or purpose of industrial processing.

A food can undergo significant processing without automatically being unsafe. Processing itself includes many ordinary practices that can improve safety, shelf life or convenience. Likewise, the presence of a GRAS ingredient does not by itself mean that a food is nutritionally healthy.

This distinction is one reason federal regulators have faced the difficult task of establishing a consistent definition of ultra-processed food. In July 2025, the FDA and USDA formally sought public information as part of an effort to create a uniform federal definition.

The debate therefore contains several overlapping questions: Is an individual ingredient safe? Is the overall product nutritious? What effect does regularly consuming that product have on health? And should the government regulate an ingredient differently because of the way it is commonly used in the modern diet?

Those questions may lead to different answers.

Why Ultra-Processed Foods Have Become a National Issue

Ultra-processed foods have increasingly become part of the discussion surrounding chronic disease, obesity and American dietary patterns.

The federal government’s growing attention to the subject is significant because defining the category could eventually influence everything from dietary guidance and research to labeling and procurement policies. Before regulators can consistently address ultra-processed foods as a category, however, they must determine exactly what qualifies.

That is more difficult than it sounds. Industrial processing covers an enormous spectrum of foods. Some products contain large amounts of added sugar, sodium or refined carbohydrates, while others may be processed for preservation, convenience or food safety while still providing important nutrients.

This complexity is why the scientific debate should not be reduced to the idea that all processing is harmful. The stronger concern involves dietary patterns, formulations and the health consequences associated with heavy consumption of certain highly processed products.

The new federal dietary guidelines nevertheless represent a clear policy shift. The 2025-2030 guidance explicitly tells Americans to limit highly processed foods, added sugars and artificial additives while emphasizing vegetables, fruits, whole grains and other less processed foods.

The Question of Who Reviews Food Ingredients

Perhaps the most consequential part of the GRAS debate concerns oversight.

The Food Additives Amendment created a distinction between substances requiring FDA approval and substances generally recognized as safe. Over time, manufacturers have been able to make GRAS determinations without necessarily obtaining a formal FDA approval for each substance and intended use.

Critics describe this as a loophole because it can allow an ingredient to reach consumers without the same mandatory premarket approval process applied to a conventional food additive. Defenders argue that GRAS is itself a statutory safety standard and that companies remain legally responsible for ensuring their products comply with federal food safety requirements.

That distinction matters. GRAS does not simply mean that a manufacturer can label anything safe without evidence. The legal standard requires general recognition among qualified experts based on the appropriate basis, including scientific procedures for newer uses.

The disagreement is instead over whether the existing process provides sufficient independent oversight, transparency and accountability.

Why an Ingredient Can Be Reconsidered Years Later

Food regulation also has to deal with changing scientific evidence.

An ingredient might be consumed differently today than it was decades ago. A substance once found in a relatively small number of products could eventually appear throughout the food supply, potentially increasing overall exposure.

Scientists may also develop better methods for identifying long-term health effects. Research into metabolism, cardiovascular disease, cancer and other conditions continues to evolve, meaning regulators sometimes reconsider earlier assumptions.

The history of the GRAS program itself demonstrates that reconsideration is possible. The federal government undertook a major review beginning around the end of the 1960s, eventually producing assessments covering hundreds of substances.

The question now is whether another substantial modernization is necessary for a food system that looks dramatically different from the one Congress was regulating in 1958.

What Changes Could Mean for Food Companies

Major GRAS reforms could have significant consequences for food manufacturers.

If companies were required to provide the FDA with more information before introducing substances into foods, manufacturers could face additional testing, documentation and regulatory requirements. Greater federal scrutiny could also lead companies to reformulate certain products.

For regulators, however, expanded oversight would create its own challenge. Reviewing substantially more ingredients would require scientific expertise, administrative capacity and resources.

There is also a risk of oversimplifying the issue. Not every unfamiliar-sounding ingredient is inherently dangerous, and chemical names alone reveal little about whether a substance presents a meaningful health risk at the amount normally consumed.

The policy challenge is therefore to identify genuine risks without treating every food additive or form of processing as equivalent.

A Debate Much Bigger Than a Food Label

“Generally Recognized as Safe” ultimately asks viewers to consider a system operating largely out of sight.

Most people shopping in a supermarket will never investigate the regulatory history of every stabilizer, flavoring substance, sweetener or other ingredient listed on a package. Consumers largely depend on manufacturers, scientists and government regulators to ensure that substances used in food are safe.

That makes trust central to the debate.

Kennedy’s campaign against highly processed foods has brought unusual public attention to a technical area of food law that was once primarily the domain of regulators, scientists, lawyers and manufacturers. Kessler’s involvement adds the perspective of someone who once led the FDA itself.

At the same time, reforming GRAS would not by itself resolve America’s broader nutrition problems. Food safety, nutritional quality, affordability, consumer behavior and chronic disease are interconnected but distinct issues. Changing how additives are reviewed addresses only one part of that much larger system.

What to Watch for in the 60 Minutes Report

Bill Whitaker’s report is especially significant because it moves the discussion away from individual ingredients and toward the regulatory architecture behind the American food supply.

The key question is not simply whether processed food is “good” or “bad.” It is whether a framework established nearly 70 years ago gives regulators enough information and authority to evaluate the substances being used in today’s dramatically different food marketplace.

Kennedy and Kessler’s calls for change suggest that the debate has moved beyond academic criticism and into federal policymaking. The administration has already made reducing highly processed foods a component of its nutrition agenda and has pursued work toward defining ultra-processed foods at the federal level.

For viewers, “Generally Recognized as Safe” offers a look behind the ingredient list on everyday foods and at a regulatory term few shoppers are likely to recognize despite its enormous importance.

The updated 60 Minutes encore airs Sunday, August 9, 2026, at 7:00 PM ET/PT on CBS and Paramount+. The “Generally Recognized as Safe” segment is reported by Bill Whitaker and produced by Sarah Koch.

More 60 Minutes on August 9 2026

Feature Articles

Exit mobile version