EDF Health

FDA takes an important step by phasing out paper greaseproofing agents containing a specific PFAS

Tom Neltner, J.D.Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the phase-out of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) used to greaseproof paper and paperboard food packaging made from a specific type of short-chain PFAS known as 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (6:2 FTOH).  The action, narrow as it is, is welcome news for efforts to protect public health and the environment from the risks posed by short chain PFAS, known as “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade.

FDA secured voluntary agreements with three companies, Archroma, Asahi Glass, and Daikin, to phase-out products based on 6:2 FTOH. A fourth company, Chemours, asked FDA to suspend the agency’s approvals on its products containing the PFAS one year ago. The action affects 15 food contact substance notifications (FCN) approved by the agency between 2006 and 2016. It does not address 13 FCNs for similar greaseproofing uses made from PFAS other than 6:2 FTOH. And, under the agreement, consumers may still find 6:2 FTOH-laden, carry-out containers until June 2025.

The process FDA took, and the time it took to get there, reveals the significant difficulties the agency has in reversing past actions in the face of mounting evidence of a chemical’s risk:

  • FDA must seek out information because companies have no obligation to affirmatively notify the agency of new studies showing potential problems;
  • When FDA finds the information and identifies potential safety concerns, it appears to act as if it has the burden of proving the use is no longer safe; and
  • FDA continued approving uses of 6:2 FTOH even after it identified problematic data gaps.

These difficulties reinforce the need for actions being taken by states such as Washington, Maine, New York, and California, by Congress, and by retailers to reduce uses of PFAS in their products. When it comes to food packaging, PFAS are dinosaurs and their time is running out.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, Health Policy, States / Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Greasing the skids: The Trump EPA is green-lighting dozens of new PFAS under TSCA

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Under an obscure and opaque – and increasingly used – exemption that EPA provides under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has been quietly approving companies’ requests to introduce new poly- and per-fluorinated substances (PFAS) onto the market.  And it seems to be ramping up.

Under this EPA the “low-volume exemption” (LVE) application process is proving to be very smooth sailing for getting new PFAS onto the market.

PFAS is a class of chemicals that are showing up as environmental contaminants all over the country.  They are linked to large and growing list of adverse effects on human health.  These concerns have led to increased scrutiny about EPA’s actions to allow new PFAS to enter commerce.  EDF and others have raised concerns about a number of premanufacture notices (PMNs) companies have filed seeking approval to introduce new PFAS into commerce (see here and here); the PMN process is the standard way in which companies are to notify EPA of their intent to start manufacturing a new chemical.

But EPA has created other pathways to quickly get a chemical on the market, whereby companies can apply for an exemption from the PMN process.  As documented in this post, we have identified a whole lot of PFAS coming into EPA’s new chemicals program through exemptions, and most of them are getting quickly approved.  Worse yet, this side process is highly insulated from public scrutiny.  Read More »

Also posted in EPA, Health Policy, Health Science, Industry Influence, Regulation, TSCA Reform / Tagged | Leave a comment

FDA scientists push back on an industry-funded analysis about bioaccumulation and toxicity of short-chain PFAS

Tom Neltner, J.D.Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

Note to readers: As we all grapple with the grave global health challenge from COVID19, we want to acknowledge the essential services that professionals at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and in the food production, processing and retail industries provide in continuing to deliver food. In the meantime, we are continuing to work towards improved health protections – including reducing chemicals in food. We’ll plan to keep sharing developments that may be useful to you. In the meantime, please stay safe and healthy.

Last year, we reported on a sophisticated analysis performed by FDA’s scientists showing that 5:3 acid, a breakdown product of a short-chain PFAS known as 6:2 fluorotelomer (6:2 FTOH) was slow to be eliminated by the body. The authors concluded that the metabolite was an important biomarker for assessment of long-term exposure to 6:2 FTOH and showed potential bioaccumulative (aka biopersistence[1]) properties. The chemical 6:2 FTOH is a common starting substance in the manufacture of many PFAS polymers, including those used to greaseproof paper and paperboard. As a result, it is a major impurity in, and degradation product of, these polymers.

We are now reporting on two recent publications by the same group of FDA scientists (Kabadi et al.[2] and Rice et al.)[3] in which they not only confirmed their initial findings but also produced new evidence on the behavior of short-chain PFAS when they enter the body. The new evidence highlights:

  • Bioaccumulation: 6:2 FTOH is transformed by the body into several metabolites; one of them, called 5:3 acid, bioaccumulates, and the bioaccumulation is greater with lower exposure to 6:2 FTOH.
  • Toxicity: The toxicity of 6:2 FTOH is concerning and its risk to human health may have been significantly underestimated previously. Data on perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), the industry’s proposed reference chemical for the short-chain PFAS class are not appropriate for assessing the potential health effects of 6:2 FTOH.

The FDA’s scientists reached these important conclusions after reviewing “recently received additional data on 6:2 FTOH and 5:3 acid” and more than a dozen reports on oral toxicity studies that “had been conducted and submitted by industry in support for food contact uses” of short-chain PFAS in addition to a study by the National Toxicology Program. They also called out flaws in industry-funded analyses that reached different conclusions.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Health Policy, Industry Influence / Tagged , | Comments are closed

What connects cross country skiing and chemical safety?

Sam Lovell, Project Manager.

An idyllic afternoon gliding through fresh snow may seem as far removed as you can get from Washington, D.C. decision-making about toxic chemicals. However, as recently reported by Outside Magazine, there’s an intriguing connection here that ought to give skiers, and the rest of us, some pause.

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a new chemical for use in ski wax. Just a few months before, the agency had planned to deny the chemical market entry based on the concern, among others, that exposure could “waterproof the lungs” – causing severe, acute harm. Due to the abrupt reversal in EPA’s decision, EDF began looking further into this case and made public records and Freedom of Information Act requests.

The intervening steps that resulted in this chemical getting the green light to market reveal serious problems in EPA’s new chemicals program regarding transparency and industry influence.

Read More »

Also posted in EPA, Health Policy, Industry Influence, TSCA Reform / Tagged , | Comments are closed

FDA’s updated results for PFAS in food suggest progress but raise questions about its method

Tom Neltner, J.D.Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released revised lab results from testing for 16 PFAS in food. Initial results of the testing were announced last June and gained wide attention because the levels of PFAS in certain foods were quite high. Surprisingly, the revised lab results show significantly fewer detections and, in the case of ground turkey and tilapia, concentrations of PFOS that are almost nine times lower than the values initially reported in June. In addition to the revised lab results, the agency also released a validated method for analyzing food for the substances and updated its PFAS webpage.

We were glad to see FDA’s ongoing work on PFAS and have already heard from commercial laboratories who are considering using the validated method as a potential new service to offer their customers. In analyzing the documentation that FDA provided,[1] we have concerns about the agency’s criteria to determine whether a sample had detectable levels of a PFAS. It appears unnecessarily restrictive and effectively underestimates the public’s exposure to PFAS. We are planning to meet with the agency to better understand their rationale for the criteria selection and its implications.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food / Tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

Think PFAS in food packaging are safe simply because FDA accepted their use? Think again.

Tom Neltner, J.D.Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

PFAS manufacturers’ claims that the agency demands scientific data, including toxicity and exposure, and conducts a rigorous review before allowing the use of the chemicals in contact with food are not accurate.

Per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS)—recently dubbed “forever chemicals”—have received a large amount of national attention, mostly due to contamination of drinking water affecting millions of Americans. Since June 2019, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its testing results from three studies, questions have arisen about food as a source of PFAS exposure. The main routes by which PFAS enter the food supply are environmental contamination—such as from nearby chemical manufacturing facilities, airports or Department of Defense operations—and from food packaging and processing equipment.

With greater attention on PFAS in food, we’ve noticed several misleading PFAS manufacturers’ talking points asserting that FDA review and acceptance is required for any PFAS to be used in contact with food, and that, due to this review, PFAS that go through this process are safe. However, their claims that the agency demands scientific data, including toxicity and exposure, and conducts a rigorous review before allowing the use of the chemicals in contact with food are not accurate.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, GRAS / Tagged , , , | Read 1 Response