The systematic reduction of iodine in the American food supply appears driven by converging industrial interests, regulatory capture, and opportunistic profit-seeking rather than explicit conspiracy. Multiple industries found financial advantage in replacing iodine with industrial waste products, while pharmaceutical companies capitalized on the resulting thyroid disorders.
The Bromine Oligopoly Profited from Bread Industry Adoption
Three chemical giants controlled the market. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Albemarle, and ICL Group commanded approximately 75% of global bromine production by the 1990s, generating billions in annual revenue. Great Lakes alone reported $2.4 billion in revenues with $295 million in profits by 1995, producing over 40 million pounds of methyl bromide annually. The concentration of market power in these few companies gave them substantial influence over bread industry practices.
The adoption timeline reveals strategic coordination. Potassium bromate was first patented for bread use in 1915, but widespread adoption coincided with the bread industry consolidation of the 1920s-1930s when companies like Continental Baking expanded nationally. By 2008, despite mounting health concerns and international bans, the American Bakers Association partnered with AIB International to release an industry guide for the "safe use" of potassium bromate—direct evidence of coordinated industry efforts to maintain bromate use against scientific evidence of harm.
Pharmaceutical Companies Capitalized on Thyroid Disorder Increases
The thyroid medication market represents extraordinary financial incentives for maintaining iodine deficiency. Current market valuation stands at $2.2-2.4 billion globally, with projections reaching $3.8 billion by 2030. AbbVie's Synthroid alone generated $763 million from the US market in 2016, while the broader levothyroxine market was valued at $3.8 billion in 2023.
The profit structure creates perverse incentives. Each hypothyroid patient represents lifetime treatment revenue averaging $500-2000 annually, with generic manufacturers reporting 40-50% gross margins on mature formulations requiring minimal R&D investment. North America dominates with 40.7% global market share, precisely where iodine reduction has been most systematic.
While direct evidence of pharmaceutical companies funding anti-iodine research remains elusive in public records, the revolving door between FDA and industry is extensively documented. Studies show 57% of FDA hematology-oncology reviewers exit to pharmaceutical companies, while 27% of drug reviewers between 2001-2010 later worked for companies they regulated. This structural capture creates conditions where regulatory decisions systematically favor industry interests.
ALCOA's Fluoride Waste Disposal Scheme Overlapped with Iodine Reduction
The aluminum industry's role reveals the most documented coordination. Andrew Mellon, founder of ALCOA and major stockholder, served as Treasury Secretary from 1921-1932 when the Public Health Service operated under Treasury authority. It was Mellon's PHS that ordered H. Trendley Dean to conduct the foundational fluoride research that justified water fluoridation.
Dr. Gerald Cox, working at the Mellon Institute (owned by the same Mellon family controlling ALCOA), made the first public proposal for US water fluoridation on September 20, 1939. His research was directly financed by the Mellon family for aluminum work, creating clear conflicts of interest. Christopher Bryson's investigation uncovered a secret "Fluorine Lawyers Committee" including ALCOA, U.S. Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, and Reynolds Metals, which commissioned research to provide "ammunition" against fluoride injury claims.
The timing correlation is striking. Iodine was removed from bread and replaced with bromide during the late 1970s to early 1980s—precisely when fluoridation was being maximized across America. Both fluoride and bromide are halides that compete with iodine for thyroid receptors, with recent research showing fluoride exposure inhibits the sodium/iodide symporter, directly contributing to iodine deficiency.
Regulatory Capture Enabled Industrial Interests Over Public Health
The Michael Taylor case exemplifies systematic regulatory capture. Taylor moved seamlessly between Monsanto and FDA positions multiple times: FDA attorney (1976-1980), Monsanto's law firm King & Spalding (1981-1991), FDA Deputy Commissioner (1991-1994), back to King & Spalding (1996-1998), Monsanto Vice President (1998-2000), and finally FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods (2009-2016). His 1994 FDA guidance requiring disclaimers on hormone-free milk labels directly benefited Monsanto's rBGH product.
Potassium bromate's regulatory history reveals capture patterns. When the Food Additive Amendments of 1958 required safety assessments, bromate was simply grandfathered into GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status without evaluation. Despite the EU banning bromate in 1990 based on carcinogenicity evidence, the FDA continues allowing it, only "urging" voluntary discontinuation since 1991.
The GRAS loophole enables systematic evasion of safety oversight. Between 2000-2021, 99% of new food chemicals entered the market through industry self-determination as GRAS, bypassing FDA review entirely. Companies face no requirement to notify FDA of these determinations, essentially allowing industry to regulate itself.
The Nuclear Industry Promoted Iodine Fears While UC Berkeley Provided Flawed Science
The 1948 Wolff-Chaikoff paper, claiming iodine toxicity at relatively low doses, emerged from UC Berkeley's Department of Physiology—the same institution heavily involved in Manhattan Project nuclear research and receiving extensive Atomic Energy Commission funding. The paper's critical flaw: thyroid hormone levels were never measured in the experimental rats, yet this study became the foundation for five decades of iodine restriction policies.
Dr. Guy Abraham's analysis revealed the effect "did not even occur in the rats" and was extrapolated to humans without supporting data. Historical evidence contradicts the claimed toxicity—Lugol's solution at 1,000-2,000 mg daily was used extensively for asthma patients for years without causing hypothyroidism. Yet "iodophobic publications" began appearing immediately after 1948, with studies on safe iodine use "mysteriously disappearing" from medical literature by the 1950s.
The nuclear industry had strategic interests in maintaining low population iodine levels. Lower iodine status increases radioactive iodine uptake during nuclear accidents or weapons testing. With nuclear testing from the mid-1940s through early 1960s releasing significant I-131 fallout, reducing population iodine levels would paradoxically increase radiation vulnerability.
Agricultural Giants Found Dual Profit Streams in Bromide Pesticides and Bread Additives
Major chemical companies including Dow Chemical and DuPont produced both bromide pesticides (particularly methyl bromide) and bread conditioning agents. This created dual revenue streams from the same industrial compounds, with agricultural applications driving production volumes that made bread industry sales additionally profitable.
The market concentration enabled coordinated influence. With just 3-4 companies controlling global bromine supply, these firms could effectively coordinate pricing and marketing strategies. Their influence extended through trade associations, with the American Bakers Association's 2008 guide for bromate use demonstrating ongoing industry coordination despite international bans.
Timeline Correlations Reveal Coordinated Policy Shifts
The synchronization of policy changes across multiple domains suggests coordination rather than coincidence. The late 1940s saw the flawed Wolff-Chaikoff paper and immediate emergence of "iodophobic" medical literature. The 1950s brought transition from iodine-based treatments to synthetic thyroid medications. The 1960s-1980s witnessed progressive iodine reduction in clinical practice while fluoridation expanded nationwide. The late 1970s to early 1980s marked the critical shift from iodine to bromide in bread, precisely when fluoride exposure peaked.
International policy alignment further suggests coordination. Multiple countries simultaneously adopted similar iodine reduction policies while expanding fluoridation, despite these policies opposing traditional public health approaches to nutrient deficiency. The contrast is stark: while the EU banned bromate in 1990 based on cancer risks, the US continues allowing it, revealing how industry influence can override scientific consensus.
Conclusion
The evidence reveals a pattern of converging industrial interests rather than singular conspiracy. Chemical companies found profitable disposal routes for fluoride and bromide waste products. Pharmaceutical companies benefited from increased thyroid disorders without necessarily orchestrating them. The aluminum industry's documented efforts to promote fluoridation established precedents for replacing essential nutrients with industrial byproducts. Regulatory capture through revolving doors and industry self-regulation enabled these transformations.
The removal of iodine from the food supply represents a case study in how industrial profit motives, regulatory capture, and flawed science can converge to harm public health. While explicit coordination remains difficult to prove from public records, the pattern of overlapping interests, synchronized timing, and documented financial beneficiaries suggests this was no accident. The transformation of essential nutrient policy into industrial waste management reveals how corporate influence can systematically override public health imperatives when regulatory systems fail to maintain independence.
Read More
Completely unrelated article /what-is-iq (that was sarcarsm)
