From Ultra-Processed Foods To Hormone Residues: Food Safety, Public Health & Corporate Accountability Collide.
A landmark lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco against major food and drink manufacturers has signalled a new phase in public health enforcement, one that treats diet-related harm not as an individual failing, but as a market and regulatory failure demanding immediate accountability.
San Francisco alleges that ultra-processed foods were engineered and marketed in ways that encourage over-consumption, especially among children, and that the public ultimately pays the price through higher rates of chronic disease and spiralling healthcare costs. While that case will be tested in court, its wider message is already echoing across the Atlantic: Europe is facing its own “trust test” over what we allow into our food chain, particularly under the EU–Mercosur trade agreement.
Why this matters in Europe now:
On 9 January 2026, EU member states greenlit the signature of the EU–Mercosur agreements, with the European Parliament’s consent still required before conclusion.
The European Commission states that EU rules apply equally to domestic and imported food, and that the agreement “upholds” EU food safety and animal/plant health standards.
However, confidence in “standards on paper” depends on something more basic: verifiable controls and traceability in practice.
Banned substances are not theoretical: recent Irish and EU recalls.
The EU prohibits the use of hormones for growth promotion in farm animals.
EFSA has also noted that ractopamine, a beta-agonist, is banned for use in food-producing animals in the EU and that the ban applies to meat produced in the EU and imported from third countries. Against that backdrop, Irish and EU reporting in recent weeks has documented the recall of Brazilian beef products after banned hormone residues were detected, including confirmation that a quantity entered the Irish market and was subject to official recall and follow-up.
The enforcement gap: what the EU’s own audit found.
A 2024 European Commission DG SANTE audit of Brazil’s residue controls concluded that while many aspects of residue control plans were broadly consistent with EU principles, arrangements to guarantee that cattle destined for the EU market had never been treated with oestradiol 17β were “ineffective”. The audit stated the competent authority could not guarantee the reliability of operators’ sworn statements on non-use, and was not in a position to reliably attest to compliance with the relevant EU health certificate section.
This is the crux of the Mercosur anxiety: not whether Europe has rules, but whether Europe can consistently verify compliance, when supply chains are long, oversight differs, and commercial incentives are strong.
Ultra-processed foods and “addictive design”: the parallel problem.
The San Francisco case centres on claims of deceptive marketing and products engineered to drive consumption.
Meanwhile, the health evidence base around UPFs continues to expand. A major BMJ umbrella review reported that greater UPF exposure is associated with higher risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly cardiometabolic outcomes, across many studies.
Controlled research has also shown that ultra-processed diets can increase calorie intake and weight gain compared with minimally processed diets under tightly controlled conditions.
The common thread is accountability: when products (or supply chains) are designed to maximise throughput and profit, public health cannot rely on consumer vigilance alone.
Calls to action
Tipperary is now calling for a joined-up response that protects consumers, supports credible producers, and restores trust in our food chain:
(1) A tougher “trust-but-verify” regime on imports).
Full use of the EU’s Official Controls framework to ensure import compliance is proven through audits, sampling, and enforceable consequences, not assurances alone.
(2) Mandatory transparency on audit findings and corrective action plans.
Where EU audits identify weaknesses in residue controls or traceability, the public must see timelines, milestones and proof of remediation.
(3) Stronger protections for children in the food environment.
Restrictions on marketing tactics that normalise high-sugar, high-salt, heavily engineered foods to children—mirroring the direction of the San Francisco action.
(4) Clearer front-of-pack information and health claims enforcement.
Consumers should not need a chemistry degree to understand what they are buying, or whether “healthy” claims stand up.
(5) A level playing field for farmers and processors meeting EU rules.
Irish and EU producers operating under strict bans and controls must not be undercut by imports where verification is demonstrably weaker.
San Francisco has drawn a line under the era of ‘hands off’ regulation when public health harms are foreseeable and widespread. Europe is now at a similar crossroads. The EU–Mercosur debate cannot be reduced to tariffs and quotas: it is also about trust, enforcement and the credibility of our bans on hormones and other restricted substances. Public health must not be negotiated away, nor should consumers be asked to carry the risk.
Recent Comments