Must Make America Healthy Again supporters still travel to Europe to eat better?

The notification proposal targets the US system known as GRAS, under which companies can reach safety conclusions about certain ingredients. HHS says mandatory notification would give the FDA greater visibility over substances entering human and animal food. Its proposed definition of ultra-processed food is intended to create a common basis for research and future policy; it does not, by itself, ban a product or establish a healthy-food label.

These initiatives form part of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again

That makes the attractive social-media contrast—American food is chemical, European food is clean—too crude. Europe regulates additives through a harmonised authorisation system, but authorised additives remain common in European supermarkets. Processing can also make food safer, more convenient or longer-lasting. VRT NWS, drawing on Belgian nutrition specialists, has noted that pasteurising milk and freezing fruit are forms of processing, while even some ready meals can have a balanced nutritional composition.

Under EU rules, a food additive must be authorised for specified uses after a safety assessment. The European Commission says approval also requires a technological need and a benefit that does not mislead consumers. EFSA conducts scientific assessments and periodically re-evaluates older approvals; the Commission and member states then manage the legal list and conditions of use. This is a structured system, not proof that every permitted additive improves health or that regulation can eliminate uncertainty.

The withdrawal of titanium dioxide, E171, illustrates the process. After EFSA concluded that a concern about damage to genetic material could not be ruled out, the Commission removed its authorisation in food, with the phase-out completed in 2022. Conversely, an E-number is not automatically a warning sign: it identifies an additive authorised for particular uses and doses.

Belgium applies the common European labelling framework. The Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain—FAVV in Dutch and AFSCA in French—says prepacked products must show ingredients in descending order by weight, with additives identified by their functional category and specific name or E-number. Allergens must be made clearly distinguishable. Dutch, French or German information may appear according to the language area where a product is marketed, while multilingual packaging is common; the E-numbers themselves do not change between languages.

If a label appears incomplete or a product presents a possible safety problem, contact FAVV-AFSCA rather than the local commune or gemeente: food-chain supervision is federal. A municipal administration remains relevant for matters such as local market permits, not the scientific approval of ingredients.

Start with the ingredients list. A long list containing several sweeteners, flavourings, emulsifiers or colours can signal a heavily formulated product, but length alone is not a scientific verdict. Next, inspect sugar, saturated fat and salt in the nutrition table and compare products serving the same purpose. The Belgian FPS Public Health explains that Nutri-Score runs from A to E and is useful for comparing products within a category, such as one breakfast cereal with another.

Nutri-Score is voluntary in Belgium and has limits. The FPS explicitly says it does not account for additives, pesticide residues, allergens, portion size or every aspect of processing. Someone managing an allergy must therefore read the allergen declaration even when the product carries an A or B. An American visitor should also recognise Belgian label terms such as “ingrediënten” and “allergenen” in Dutch or “ingrédients” and “allergènes” in French.

Finally, look beyond packaging. Belgium’s 2025 dietary recommendations, reported by VRT NWS, place greater emphasis on vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes and unsalted nuts, while advising limits on processed red meat. That pattern matters more than locating a supposedly perfect biscuit, cereal or protein bar. Price, access, working hours and cooking facilities all affect whether people can follow it—especially students, shift workers and newly arrived expatriates.

Visitors may genuinely eat differently here: smaller portions, more walking, longer meals or less reliance on a car can alter how they feel. Those experiences do not demonstrate that European versions of individual products are universally healthier, nor do they isolate food regulation from healthcare access, income, urban design and culture.

The broader story is therefore a convergence with limits. Washington is borrowing ideas familiar in European policy—greater pre-market visibility, clearer definitions and closer scrutiny—while retaining a different legal and political system. Europe, meanwhile, continues to reassess its own approvals and debate how to address diets dominated by cheap, convenient products.

What happens next depends on the final US rule, the eventual ultra-processed-food definition and whether either produces enforceable restrictions rather than research terminology. Until then, MAHA supporters may continue to idealise European shelves. They do not need a transatlantic ticket to follow the strongest everyday advice, however: eat a varied diet centred on recognisable staple foods, compare like with like and treat confident claims about “clean” continents with caution.