> It’s surprising to me that regulators allow this to be kept a trade secret. The FDA protects trade secrets and more broadly "any commercially valuable plan,

> It’s surprising to me that regulators allow this to be kept a trade secret. The FDA protects trade secrets and more broadly "any commercially valuable plan, formula, or device". Just because something is a trade secret doesn't mean you don't have to tell the FDA about it. That said, it's not like you really have to prove something is safe before adding it to food. > There’s no way for consumers to review the product for safety. Disagree. Or rather, knowing what the coating is does not make you any safer. What it should be is very different from what it actually is and what is inadvertently included with it. 3rd party analysis is the only thing that actually tells you what is in something. It is useful to have public listings of things for people who want to categorically avoid BPA or MSG or whatever, but that's really a different issue from safety. If it crosses over into a real safety concern, like a nut allergy, trade secrets are overridden. I (personally) don't think it's good to say that any safety concern (in this case, a hypothetical one!) can override trade secrets. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with that though.