Families in District 45 Deserve Safer Food and Stronger Leadership
By Joshua T. Atkinson
FREEPORT, IL – November 28, 2025
SB0093 aimed to phase out four contentious food-additive chemicals — Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO), Potassium Bromate, Propylparaben, and FD&C Red No. 3 — substances already banned or heavily restricted in many parts of the world. The bill did not call for an immediate purge; rather, it set a realistic timetable to give manufacturers and retailers time to transition. For too long, families across Illinois — including here in Northwest Illinois — have had to rely on market-based “hope” that companies would voluntarily reformulate. SB0093 promised instead to guarantee safe standards for all.*
Yet when the bill reached the Senate floor, Andrew Chesney chose to say “No.” Attempting to shut the door on an effort that blended public-health caution with practical economic transition. No amendments. No compromise. No plan. Just rejection.
Why These Additives Are Risky — Not Trivial
Many of the chemicals SB0093 sought to eliminate are not harmless flavor enhancers — they carry real health risks, as recognized even by federal regulators. BVO, once common in citrus-flavored drinks and other beverages, was officially removed from approved food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024 after studies indicated potential harm from bromine residues accumulating in fat tissues, including liver, heart, brain, and other organs. That accumulation — known as “bromism” — has been linked to neurological symptoms such as memory loss, tremors, fatigue, and other serious effects.
Potassium bromate, widely used as a dough conditioner to strengthen flour and accelerate rising, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “possible human carcinogen.” Scientific studies have identified links to cancer, kidney damage, thyroid disease, reproductive issues, and DNA damage through oxidative stress.
Propylparaben — a preservative common in baked goods and processed foods — has raised serious concern among health advocates for its endocrine-disrupting properties. In animal studies, exposure to parabens has been associated with hormonal imbalances and reproductive harm.
FD&C Red No. 3, a synthetic red dye used widely in candies, baked goods, frozen desserts and more, has been singled out for possible carcinogenic effects and neurobehavioral issues. Studies on lab animals linked the dye to tumors, and past regulatory action already removed it from cosmetics — yet it remained legal in foods.
In short: these are not arbitrary “food fuss” concerns. They are documented risks involving cancer, neurological damage, hormonal disruption, and potential long-term health consequences — especially concerning for children and families who consume processed foods regularly.
What Conservatives and Free-Markets Should Value — And How SB0093 Aligns
Real conservative values have seldom been about blind allegiance to “less regulation at all costs.” Core conservative principles reflect a responsibility to protect families, safeguard public health, defend honest markets, and support businesses — particularly small and local ones — by giving them time and clarity to comply with realistic standards. SB0093 embodied exactly that balance.
The bill promised a phased transition, giving manufacturers time to reformulate, retailers time to rotate inventory, and small businesses time to adjust. It would have triggered investment in safer, alternative ingredients — stimulating demand for reformulation, packaging, and supply-chain work. That could have meant new business for Illinois food processors, opportunities for local suppliers, and a competitive edge for those choosing to market “safe, additive-free” foods.
Moreover, by updating standards, Illinois could align with the majority of Europe, Canada, and other countries that already banned or curtailed these additives — leveling the playing field for exporters and protecting consumers. For a district like ours, balancing manufacturing, agriculture, and small business, that kind of forward-looking approach is conservative at its best: protecting health without smothering enterprise; encouraging innovation without crushing livelihoods.
Chesney’s Vote: A Missed Moment for Real Leadership
In refusing to support SB0093, Andrew Chesney did more than express opposition to government overreach — he denied Northwest Illinois a voice in a statewide policy that directly affects the health of our children, the viability of local businesses, and the credibility of Illinois agriculture and food-processing industries.
He offered no amendments to ease the transition. No guarantees to help small manufacturers comply. No framework for enforcement or incentive. No compromise. Simply a “No.”
That kind of disengagement does not reflect principled conservatism — it reflects an unwillingness to lead. When presented with a chance to help families and businesses adapt together, the vote should not have been “Yes or No.” It should have been “Yes — but let’s get this right for our communities.”
By stepping out rather than stepping up, Chesney left the job undone.
What Northwest Illinois Needs — Not What We Got
Our region — from small farm operations to local grocers, from mid-size food processors to working families — deserves a representative who treats public health and economic competitiveness not as opposing values, but as complementary pillars.
We need a leader who shows up to the legislative table, trades positions, pushes for amendments, negotiates support for small businesses, and ensures that when laws change, local jobs and local people are protected. We need someone who treats legislation not as a symbolic vote, but as a tool — for health, for growth, for accountability.
Chesney’s vote on SB0093 was an opportunity to do that job. It was a chance to show that in Illinois, conservatives can — and should — champion consumer safety, strong business, and common-sense reform. Instead, we got a missed opportunity.
When votes like these come up again, our families and businesses should expect — and demand — more than simply hearing “No.” They deserve leadership that does the hard work: improving outcomes, protecting health, and building prosperity.
