Why I Stepped Away from the Food Industry’s Biggest Stage

​

HiReader,

A few months ago, I was invited to speak at a major food industry conference — a high-profile event where scientists and corporate leaders help shape how ingredients are evaluated, regulated, and marketed.

I was asked to bring a perspective that’s too often missing in those rooms: the voice of the informed consumer.​
At first, I was hopeful.

But after one planning call yesterday, I made the decision to step away.

What I Heard on That Call

The other keynote panelists, while intelligent and well-credentialed, held a deeply industry-aligned view:

• That natural and synthetic ingredients are chemically identical and therefore equally safe and treated the same by the body
• That it’s unsustainable to grow plants like beets for color or flavor
• That it’s more sustainable to manufacture those compounds in a lab
• That consumers don’t really care — and often prefer the bright, artificial colors
• That the science shows no harm in most synthetic ingredients
• That replacing synthetics with natural alternatives is simply too expensive
• That other countries only ban certain additives because of labeling laws, not because they’re any safer

To their credit, the organizers didn’t want this to become a debate.

They tried to hold space for my views.

But I could see that in this environment, my message wasn’t going to be truly welcome — not by the panel, and likely not by much of the audience (largely industry people.)

So, I respectfully declined.
And instead, I recommended someone from the Environmental Working Group — a policy expert with deep experience in food safety and chemical regulation.

The Science Behind My Decision

It's often said that synthetic and natural ingredients are “chemically identical.”
But that’s an oversimplification — and one that ignores how biology actually works.

🟢 Natural compounds are delivered in whole-food packages — with co-factors like fiber, enzymes, and antioxidants that help the body absorb and process them safely.
​
🔴 Synthetic additives are often:

• Isolated or hyper-concentrated
• Structurally novel to human biology
• Poorly studied in real-world, cumulative exposure scenarios

And while we’ve long been told, “the dose makes the poison,” that’s not how endocrine-disrupting chemicals behave.

Many of them — commonly found in food additives, packaging, and preservatives — cause harm at very low doses, especially over time.

Key findings:

• The Endocrine Society (2015) linked synthetic endocrine disruptors to infertility, metabolic disease, and neurological issues — often at trace levels.
• A study in Environmental Health Perspectives showed that chronic exposure to certain preservatives and plastic chemicals can disrupt hormone balance.
• Research in Toxicology Letters found that low-dose mixtures of common synthetic chemicals trigger oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, and metabolic disruption over time.

This Isn’t Just About Food Labels

The same pattern plays out in agriculture.

While natural pesticides used in organic systems break down quickly and are used sparingly, synthetic pesticides:

• Persist in the soil, water, and body
• Are linked to hormone disruption and neurological damage
• Regularly show up in food, even after washing

This is why I advocate for the precautionary principle:
​If there’s credible concern, we don’t wait for harm to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We take action.

A Better Stage

While I won’t be speaking at that food industry event, I’m excited to share that I’ve been invited to speak at TEDxTaftAvenue later this year (or early 2026):

There, I’ll share what I believe to be true:
That we deserve full transparency about what’s in our food.
That nature provides what we need — and our bodies know the difference.
That protecting health shouldn’t be controversial.

What do you think about all of this? Would you have done the same thing, or taken a different tact? I'd love your feedback.

Thank you for being part of this movement with me.

—Amy

​