Since Florida First Lady Casey DeSantis announced the Healthy Florida First initiative in January, the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA)-aligned contaminant testing program has already published two reports that raise alarm about the safety of two commodity groups: infant formula and candy.

However, the reports, published on a pointedly named website (exposingfoodtoxins.com), do not include information about Healthy Florida First’s methodology, raising questions about which criteria were used to determine that infant formulas have elevated levels of toxic heavy metals or that candy products have unsafe levels of arsenic. While the Healthy Florida First reports suggest cause for consumer concern, toxicologists say the lack of transparency is a cause of confusion.

Details Missing from Florida Food Contaminant Testing Reports

According to a Florida Department of Health (FDOH) representative who spoke to the Daytona Beach News Journal (DBNJ), for the candy testing assignment, “Samples were analyzed using [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] EPA Method 6010D for the multi-elemental determination of metals in solid and liquid samples. The laboratory followed its established quality assurance plan to validate and verify all results.”

EPA Method 6010D is an environmental sample analytical method for identifying inorganic metals in environmental matrices—like soil—rather than food matrices.

According to Toxicologist and Certified Industrial Hygienist Alex LeBeau, Ph.D., M.P.H., C.I.H., Owner of Exposure Consulting based in Orlando, Florida, because the official Healthy Florida First reports do not contain any information about their methodology, it is not possible to ascertain why FDOH chose an environmental matrix analysis for a food product instead of using a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) testing method intended for food matrices, or whether the FDOH-contracted laboratory modified this method as the basis for performing additional analysis.

As there are fundamental differences in an environmental matrix versus a manufactured food product like candy, “the results are likely biased because of an inappropriate analytical technique, making interpretation difficult,” said Dr. LeBeau.

Importantly, the Healthy Florida First reports do not state the number of samples analyzed, leaving it unclear whether one sample of each product was analyzed and that data point reported, or if the contaminant concentrations are averages of multiple analyzed samples. FDOH also did not disclose if it compared product lot numbers to obtain averages across products and lots.

Moreover, Florida also reports that some candy does not contain any arsenic, does not disclose the laboratory’s reporting limit or limit of detection (LOD). LOD is the minimum number at which an impurity can be detected. Samples where no contaminant is detected are usually reported as being less than the LOD, and the LOD is stated by the lab.

Hazards Identification versus Risk Assessment

The distinction between identifying hazards and determining risk is important, explained Dr. LeBeau. A hazard is a potential source of harm from a substance before considering the concepts of exposure and dose. Risk is the probability of potential adverse effects resulting from exposure to a hazard. Exposure to a hazard does not mean that a person is at realistic risk of an associated health outcome; there are levels for many hazards that human bodies can internalize without an appreciable elevated risk of harm.

There are various validated risk assessment models to assess exposure to a hazard and quantify the risk of harm to human health. FDOH has not disclosed the equations, assumptions, or inputs involved in their risk assessments.

“The scientific rationale behind how these exposure assessments and risk assessments are performed is crucial for understanding if the exposure parameters reflect realistic exposure or if they are merely theoretical,” explained Dr. LeBeau.

Toxicity versus Carcinogenicity

In its statement to DBNJ, FDOH said that it relied on the health thresholds set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for its assessment of arsenic in candy. ASTDR establishes minimal risk levels (MRLs) for chemicals of concern at hazardous waste sites based on toxic outcomes. FDOH also did not specify whether it relied on acute or chronic MRLs.

Dr. LeBeau explained that, despite ASTDR MRLs not being relevant to carcinogenicity, FDOH alluded to the carcinogenicity of arsenic in its statement to DBNJ, saying “The arsenic levels identified in the candy testing results pose potential cancer and non-cancer risks for both children and adults.”

“Overall, it seems that Florida has confused toxicological outcomes with carcinogenic outcomes, which the typical parent looking at these data will not be able to contextualize. It is not clear if the state did both types of assessments and picked the most sensitive outcome, or if they have confused the risk inputs. Ultimately, Florida releasing its method would be extremely helpful to further understand what these data actually mean,” said Dr. LeBeau.

What This Means for Concerned Consumers

Overall, Dr. LeBeau expresses that, from an exposure scientist’s perspective, the Healthy Florida First Reports do not convey any interpretable meaning—and that releasing data without scientific context is “alarmist reporting.”

“As a parent, I want to understand how something is going to affect my children,” concluded Dr. LeBeau. “While I can fall back on my professional evaluation, other parents are relying on officials to give them information to make decisions. As these data are presented, they do nothing to aid a parent in determining if the candy is ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe.’”

In an article written for the December ’25/January ‘26 issue of Food Safety Magazine by toxicology experts, the authors echo sentiments about the critical importance of clear, science-based answers to help consumers understand the actual health risks of hazards identified in reports like those produced by the Healthy Florida First initiative.

“People are often inherently more fearful of certain types of exposures, such as those that are beyond their control, engineered, have no apparent health benefit, and/or experienced by children,” the column states. “Customers will likely be fearful if presented with reports that a hazard has been detected in foods they purchase or consume.”

Moreover, without responding to consumer concerns with scientific clarity, these concerns are likely to grow—and can quickly turn into reputational and regulatory risk for food companies.

“To help customers understand the potential for risk associated with these exposures, both consumer messaging and scientific reports should include information explaining why these impurities are present and how these exposures compare to health-based guidance values and/or exposures from alternative, familiar sources. Just as important, this messaging should come from a trusted and credible source,” the column concludes.