San Francisco UPF Lawsuit #9: “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS)
In the historic San Francisco lawsuit against Big Food, the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) designation is the ultimate battlefield. To the food giants, GRAS is a legal “shield.” To the City of San Francisco, it is a dangerous “loophole” that has allowed a chemical coup of the American diet.
To understand the case, you have to understand how a rule originally meant for vinegar and basil became the primary vehicle for ultra-processing.
1. The Industry Shield: “Just Following the Rules”
Established in 1958, GRAS was designed to exempt common, time-tested ingredients- like salt or pepper – from the rigorous, multi-year FDA approval process required for new additives.
The Industry Defense: Manufacturers argue that if every ingredient in their product is GRAS-certified, they are in full compliance with federal law. They claim a “Safe Harbor” since the government deemed these substances safe, selling them cannot, by definition, be a “public nuisance.”
2. The City’s Attack: The “Self-GRAS” Loophole
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu argues the GRAS system has been “captured” by the industry. The turning point was 1997, when the FDA shifted to a voluntary notification system.
- Self-Certification: Today, companies can hire their own experts to “affirm” an ingredient is safe and never even tell the FDA it exists.
- The “Synergistic” Disaster: This is the city’s strongest point. While one emulsifier might be safe in a vacuum, the cumulative effect of 15 different industrial additives creates a “metabolic storm” that the GRAS system was never designed to evaluate.
3. “Additives of Concern” in the Crosshairs
The San Francisco complaint moves beyond sugar and salt to target specific classes of industrial substances that thrive within the GRAS loophole:
| Additive Type | Examples | The “Conflict” in the Suit |
| Emulsifiers | Lecithins, Polysorbates, CMC | Cites The Lancet (2025) research on gut lining damage and “leaky gut.” |
| Flavor Enhancers | MSG, Yeast Extract | Argues they are used to create “Bliss Points” that override satiety. |
| Synthetic Dyes | Red 40, Yellow 5 & 6 | Points to California’s 2024 ban in schools due to neurobehavioral risks. |
| Sweeteners | Aspartame, Sucralose | Alleges they confuse the body’s insulin response and disrupt metabolism. |
4. Why Legality Isn’t a Defense
In “Public Nuisance” law, an act can be 100% legal and still be a nuisance. Think of a 24-hour factory: it has a permit, but if the noise keeps the whole neighborhood from sleeping, it’s a nuisance.
San Francisco is applying this logic to GRAS: Even if these chemicals are “legal” individually, using them to engineer addictive, health-destroying products interferes with the public’s right to health.
The Verdict: Pierce the Veil
The “Self-GRAS” system allowed thousands of chemicals to enter our food supply in total darkness. In 1997, the government essentially stopped certifying GRAS, turning it into an “industry self-policing honor system.” It is a system full of potholes and dangers.
When the industry falls back on the argument that an ingredient “is GRAS,” it’s a weak defense, because they are the ones who defined it as safe in the first place.
At WISEcode, our NFP+ technology provides the transparency the loophole tries to hide. We don’t just look at what’s on the label; we identify the chemical footprints of these industrial additives across 730,000+ foods. WISEcode is the only database in the world that identifies GRAS, Self-Reporting GRAS, and Non-GRAS ingredients. If this data exists, why doesn’t the food industry embrace this knowledge? The industry used the loophole to hide. We are using data to lay it bare.