Delaney Clause of Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (College Board AP® Environmental Science): Study Guide
Delaney Clause of Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act
Background
Introduced to address growing public concerns in the mid-20th century over cancer-causing chemicals in food
At the time, new food additives and preservatives were being developed without consistent safety testing
The Delaney Clause was one of the first laws to apply a “zero-tolerance” policy to carcinogens in the U.S. food supply
Part of the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Named after Congressman James Delaney, who was vocal about the need to prevent cancer risks from synthetic chemicals
Key Dates
1958: Delaney Clause enacted as part of the Food Additives Amendment
1996: The Food Quality Protection Act modified how the clause is applied
Introduced a more risk-based approach for pesticide residues in food
Shifted focus from zero-risk to reasonable certainty of no harm
How the Delaney Clause relates to the environment
Originally prohibited the use of any food additive found to induce cancer in humans or animals
Applied to both direct additives (e.g. preservatives) and indirect additives (e.g. residues from packaging or processing)
Although focused on human health, it highlights how environmental contaminants can enter the food chain
For example, pesticide residues or industrial chemicals in crops and processed foods
Evaluation
Successes:
Raised public and scientific awareness of the potential cancer risks of food additives
Set a precedent for preventive regulation of chemicals in the food system
Helped pave the way for stricter testing and labeling requirements for food ingredients
Challenges:
The zero-tolerance standard was often criticized as inflexible and overly simplistic
Difficult to enforce, especially when trace amounts of substances were detectable with modern technology
Created inconsistencies — a substance could be banned under the Delaney Clause but allowed in pesticides due to different laws
Eventually revised by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act to include risk-based assessment
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Be prepared to discuss why a zero-risk approach can be both beneficial and controversial.
Beneficial: It prioritizes human safety and avoids any known carcinogens in the food supply
Controversial: It does not consider actual exposure levels — for example, a chemical might cause cancer in rats at extremely high doses but pose negligible risk at trace levels in human diets
You've read 0 of your 5 free study guides this week
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?