Yeah maybe there are some issues with government efficiency if it took 30 years for foods like this to be able to brand themselves healthy whereas white bread could false advertise with FDA approval.
Especially since a large part of the required work is meta work to show that they worked "properly".
There are executive orders (and maybe laws? can't remember) that require all rule making to be subject to thorough cost benefit analysis.
One of the required actions between a proposed and final rule is to review, reply to, and perhaps amend rules based on comments. The final report indicates 400 comments, and includes responses to basically all of them.
For tuna it's recommended you don't eat it frequently becasue of high mercury levels.
Why would not consider that for things like salmon?
Unfortunately government bureaucracies basically operate in low trust mode because of accumulated scar tissue from previous problems.
Ripping out guard rails without building a high trust environment is asking for a speed run of all of the scar tissue to reform.
The fact that you characterized a slow process as corrupt, when a huge amount of the slowness is because of mandated rules put in place to attempt to mitigate corruption is in itself a sign of the low trust hell that these regulators live in.
Seems suss. The root word of Salmonella is Salmon; clearly it may not be healthy.
Water is just a rebranding of dihydrogen monixide, and we all know how bad that stuff is. It's made from rocket fuel, and you're trying to push it off as healthy?
If you’re digging up Dr. Salmon, after whom Salmonella is named, and consuming his corpse…yeah, that might be a bad idea.
If we lived in a dictatorship, things would go faster, public be damned. China gets things done, but at great expense to the impacted people.