As a rule of thumb, the US just operates differently - spending much more effort on testing and inspection and labeling on the final product - whereas Europe has stricter, more precautionary scrutiny of ingredients, but operates with less oversight. (If you can remember the horse meat fiasco in Europe a decade ago, something like that could have never happened in the US.)
There are also some counter examples like Chlorpyrifos which is banned in the US but not the EU.
When you're contesting what the system considers "safe", citing metrics of which countries are "safe" according to the system isn't useful.
Someone can claim atrazine is in food and that's bad, while the system thinks that's fine. Then you can't cite a source that considers atrazine in food to be fine, to prove the food is actually fine.
13th in food security .. that's not a measure of food "safety" (from harmful toxins, etc) but of "security" in terms of can food be delivered year in year out despite drought, flooding, bad weather, supply chain disruption, etc.
Countries with a high measure of security aren't likely to quickly go hungry in the event of a neighbouring war, etc.
