Florida officials have announced that an investigation has found "problematic" levels of arsenic in popular children's candy products.
The testing originally began with probing infant formula for heavy metals and pesticides as part of the Healthy Florida First initiative, which was established to ensure accountability and empowerment of consumers "to make the healthiest choices for their families".
However, it soon expanded to encompass other products marketed to children, with an independent certified lab for the Florida Department of Health testing 46 candy products for heavy metals.
The lab found arsenic 'at elevated levels' in 28 of the sweets, which included chocolate-based products as well as some marketed as organic or healthier alternatives.
Out of the candies tested, Jolly Ranchers had the highest arsenic levels, with 540 parts per billion. A child can safely consume six per year, while an adult can consume 15.
"Food is an essential part of life and we need it to be as safe and nutritious as possible," Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph A. Ladapo said in a statement.
"We believe that evaluating risks and communicating our findings to the public are essentially steps for driving the change we seek in the food industry and improving the health of Floridians."
However, the results of the investigation have sparked debate around how the industry gathers, assesses and frames food safety data.
Conflicting results
Arsenic naturally occurs in many foods at low concentrations.
How levels of the substance were measured in Florida is a point of contention for the National Confectioners Association (NCA), which says differences in technique from the FDA could cause unnecessary consumer confusion.
In a statement, the NCA said: "The recent announcement from the State of Florida is misguided and demonstrates a glaring lack of transparency related to data-driven, scientific safety thresholds and the evaluation of confectionery products."
The FDA has a 'Closer to Zero' initiative that aims to reduce dietary exposures to naturally occurring elements and is currently working on arsenic action levels for foods consumed by children.
The levels used for this initiative followed intensive scientific analysis and debate, including public forums and comment periods.
On the other hand, the screening benchmarks used in the Florida investigation were not tied to the FDA action levels or enforcement thresholds.
Instead, the arsenic level estimates were based on "highly conservative" models that used the "strictest standards" for inputs and levels, according to Ladapo.
This is a point of contention for the NCA, which says that differences in technique from the FDA could cause unnecessary consumer confusion.
"It will result in confusion among consumers, regulators and lawmakers. Alternatively, the FDA’s Closer to Zero Initiative was created to reduce dietary exposure to naturally occurring elements (such as arsenic) and is currently working on arsenic action levels for foods consumed by children," the trade group said in a statement.
"Florida has chosen sound bites over science — ignoring this science-based programme in favour of publishing unsourced materials that amount to little more than a scare tactic."
It is also unclear if Florida's investigation measured inorganic or organic arsenic. Inorganic arsenic is found in soil and is more toxic than organic arsenic.
To add to the confusion, the FDA's TDSi, released earlier this week, also contradicts Florida's conclusions.
"The FDA findings related to arsenic in confectionery accessible through this tool are significantly lower than what the State of Florida released in its confectionery study."
"This FDA tool provides more transparency for consumers, regulators, media and lawmakers looking to make sense of the Florida report," the NCA said.
Ramifications for brands
Fallout for those named in the Florida list could be harsh. There may be reputational damage, as well as increased consumer confusion about the safety of the US food supply chain.
Those who investigate their own products will face operational challenges related to sourcing, or even potential reformulation.
The list could also lead to the food and beverage industry entering into a race for certifications to reassure consumers about product safety, especially with the Make America Healthy Again Commission so focused on "hidden" ingredients or additives.
There is also the potential for legal challenges, including potential class-action lawsuits or shareholder claims.
Key takeaways
The investigation has reignited debate around how food safety data should be generated, interpreted and communicated.
While the state says its conservative screening methods are intended to protect public health, industry groups argue the approach diverges from FDA standards and risks misleading consumers.
The conflicting findings highlight ongoing uncertainty around substance measurement and regulatory thresholds, with potential reputational, regulatory and legal consequences for confectionery brands and the wider food industry.