I'll agree that there are some cases where it'd be useful to have someone with familiarity with the industries they regulate on staff. This case in particular

I'll agree that there are some cases where it'd be useful to have someone with familiarity with the industries they regulate on staff. This case in particular is one where in-depth insider knowledge or decades of industry experience shouldn't be an issue since setting "safe" levels of poison is entirely about the negative health impacts of heavy metals on the consumer and the specific means for reducing the levels of those poisons in the products themselves can be left entirely to the "experts" at the chocolate factory/cocoa farm. Regulators can just set a level deemed "safe" and it falls on the corporations to either offer a safe product or, if they are unable or unwilling to meet the standard, find a new way to make money that doesn't involve the mass poisoning of the American public. We could bring just about any random person in off the street and have them consult with medical experts to develop the standards. In fact, the farther away from the food industry that person is the better. I'd argue that the more a regulatory agency is focused on the health and safety of the consumer, the less important it is for the regulators to be intimately familiar with the industry being regulated. At least, when we're already aware of the health problems and know what to test for. Industry insiders may be able to help identify products or chemicals in cases where companies know they are selling dangerous products and are hiding that information from the public, but it seems that someone with close ties to the industry wouldn't be very likely to act as a whistleblower in those cases anyway.