EDF Health

Important insight from the organic certification approach to chemical additives in food

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: March 19, 2019

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

Since 2014, chemicals in food[1] have been consumers’ most important food safety issue, reaching a high of 35% in 2018, according to annual industry surveys by the International Food Information Council. For comparison, “foodborne illness from bacteria” was half that percent.

Food companies have responded to this growing consumer alarm by adopting policies banning artificial flavors, colors and other ingredients that sound like chemicals. This approach is unlikely to do more than serve as window dressing for the underlying problems since it’s not science-based – many of these additives may be safe. The Center for Science in the Public Interest called out this practice in its 2017 “Clean Label: Public Relations or Public Health?” report and pointed readers to its Chemical Cuisine system that rates common additives for health and safety.

There are some companies, like Panera Bread, that are taking a more systematic approach to the ingredients used in the food they sell, starting with the question of whether the additives used are essential and whether the ingredients pose health or safety concerns. As a result, the company worked closely with their suppliers and reformulated many of their products.

And now, thanks to a fascinating new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), we are learning about another structured approach that addresses health concerns with chemical additives – the Federal organic certification program for processed foods. To be honest, before reading the report, I viewed the organic program as narrowly focused on pesticides and was only vaguely aware of how it dealt with chemical additives. I was missing the bigger picture.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Health policy, Public health / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Towards Safer Food Additives

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 11, 2015

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.

EDF strives to make safer food available by partnering with companies to reduce and eliminate potentially unsafe chemical food additives and supporting efforts to fix a broken regulatory system.

For many years this blog has focused on the safety of chemicals and nanomaterials used in industrial and consumer products.  Most of these substances are regulated federally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  But we also encounter chemicals in other ways, including those present in or added to food.  Such chemicals are regulated under a different law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  This blog introduces EDF’s “Behind the Label” initiative to get unsafe and questionable chemicals out of our food by using dual levers of change—corporate leadershIFIC Charts - 5-16-16ip and public policy.   Making our food trustworthy demands leadership in both the private sector and the FDA.

The food market is changing rapidly as manufacturers work to keep up with consumer concerns about what’s in our food. And it’s not just about added sugar, salt and trans fats, or whether the food was grown locally or with or without pesticides. Public campaigns increasingly put the spotlight on many chemicals commonly used in food and food packaging—food additives—with growing scientific evidence questioning the safety of their use.

A respected industry survey released in May 2015 showed that 36% of consumers rated chemicals in food as their most important food safety concern – greater than pathogens, pesticides, animal antibiotics and allergens, and up from 23% in 2014 and 9% in 2011. These concerns translated into action; 23% of consumers reported changing their buying habits (corrected from 45% on May 16, 2016). Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Health policy, Markets and Retail / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Alternative Figures: FDA’s food chemical reports to Congress don’t add up

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: April 10, 2023

In its annual justification of budget estimates to Congress, FDA describes its activities and tracks its performance. One of those performance measures is the percentage of food- and color-additive petitions (FAPs/CAPs) the agency has reviewed and completed within 360 days of receipt.[1]

We analyzed FDA’s reports to Congress published from 2016 to 2023 and found that FDA told Congress it had completed 100% of its reviews within 360 days in every year but one. The exception was FY2020, when the rate dropped to 89%. During that 7-year period, the agency reported that it had filed a total of 51 petitions. (See Table 1.)

Why It Matters

FDA’s impressive claims about the percentage of FAP/CAP reviews it completed run contrary to our experience and the available evidence:

  • FDA’s own webpage describes seven petitions that have been under review for over 360 days. (See Table 2.) Five of those overdue petitions were filed in FY2021, when the agency claimed it had reviewed and completed 89% of them. The agency reports filing and reviewing only two petitions in that year.
  • Four of five petitions submitted by food safety advocates for which the agency has made a decision were in FDA’s review pipeline for over 360 days.[2] For three of those overdue petitions, FDA acted only after petitioners sued in court for unreasonable delay. (See Table 3.)
  • FDA’s guidance for industry on these petitions says, “the average time between submission until a final rule is published for a direct food additive petition is 24 months and for color additive petitions, the approval process varies significantly.”

Our Take

Accurate and transparent reporting empowers Congress to:

  • See that the agency is having difficulty meeting its deadline for reviewing FAPs/CAPs; and
  • Set priorities and evaluate FDA’s funding requests more effectively.

Our Research Findings

Table 1 summarizes those findings. We excluded years where we did not have data for both petitions filed/reviewed in the fiscal year and the percent of petitions reviewed within 360 days.[3]

Table 1: FDA’s Reporting of Office of Food Additive Safety Activity

(Year of Budget Justification Reports)
Fiscal Year FAPs/CAPs

Filed/ Reviewed*

 FAPs/CAPs Percent Reviewed within 360 days
FY2015

10 / 11
(2016 report, p. 61)

100%

(2017 report p. 57 &

2016 report p. 59)
FY2016 7 / 7

(2017 report, p. 60)

100%

(2018 report p. 54 &

2017 report p. 57)
FY2017 10 / 10

(2018 report p. 57)

100%

(2019 report p. 67 &

2018 report p. 54)
FY2018 10 / 10

(2018 report p. 57)

100%

(2021 report p. 80 &

2020 report p. 68 &

2019 report p. 67)
FY2019 5 / 5

(2021 report p. 82 &

2020 report p. 70)

100%

(2022 report p. 96 &

2021 report p. 80 &

2020 report p. 67)

FY2020

 7 / 7

(2021 report p. 82)

89%

(2023 report p. 66)
FY2021

 

 2 / 2

(2022 report p. 98)

100%

(2023 report p. 64 &

2022 report p. 96)

* Reviewed includes approved, withdrawn, or placed in abeyance due to deficiencies during the fiscal year.

 

Table 2 identifies all food and color additive petitions that FDA’s website reported as under review (and not in abeyance or decided) as of April 7, 2023. “Days Under Review” is calculated as of that date.

Table 2: Status of Food and Color Additive Petitions
Under Review as of April 7, 2023
Substance and Requested Action Petition No. Filing Date Days Under Review
Revoke BHA FAP 0A4216 6/22/90 11,977
Allow jagua (genipin-glycine) blue CAP 0C0317 7/31/20 980
Allow Vitamin D3 FAP 1A4827 2/3/21 793
Allow Gardenia Blue Powder CAP 1C0319 4/20/21 717
Allow vitamin D2 mushroom powder FAP 1A4828 6/8/21 668
Allow blue Galdieria (Galdieria sulphuraria) extract CAP 1C0320 7/27/21 619
Allow vitamin D2 heat-killed (“inactive”) baker’s yeast FAP 1A4829 9/28/21 556
Allow myoglobin CAP 2C0322 12/13/21 480
Revoke bisphenol A (BPA) FAP 2B4831 5/2/22 340
Revoke Red Dye No. 3 CAP 3C0323 11/15/22 143

 

Table 3 reviews the timing of FAPs/CAPs submitted by food safety advocates since 2014. Where available, FDA’s decision on the petition is noted, as well as whether petitioners went to court asking a judge to issue a writ of mandamus to order the agency to act. For each of those lawsuits, FDA agreed relatively quickly to a schedule to make a final decision on the petition.

Table 3: Timing of Review for Advocates’ Petitions
Seeking Revocation of Food and Color Additive Approvals (as of April 7, 2023)
Substance and Requested Action Filing Date Decision Date Days Under Review Decision Lawsuit Filing Date
Perchlorate as FCS 12/31/14 4/28/17 849 Denied 3/31/16
Long-chain PFAS (non-sulfonated) as a food contact substance (FCS) 1/7/15 12/29/15 356 Accepted None
Carcinogenic flavors as food ingredient 8/17/15* 10/2/18 963 Accepted for 6 of 7 5/17/18
Ortho-phthalates as FCS 4/12/16** 5/20/22 1516 Denied 2/7/21
Lead acetate as cosmetic color additive 2/24/17 10/25/18 618 Accepted None
Bisphenol A as FCS 5/2/22 Pending
Red Dye No. 3 11/15/22 Pending
* Revised to 2/12/16 due to substantive amendments provided by petitioner.

** Revised to 3/26/18 due to substantive amendments provided by petitioner.

 

Next Steps

The agency should explain to Congress and stakeholders how it came up with its numbers and ensure accurate and transparent reporting.

NOTES

[1] The statutory deadline for a final decision on a food or color additive petition is 90 days, with an option to extend for an additional 90 days for a total of 180 days. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 348(c)(2) and 379e(d)(1). We do not know why FDA’s performance measure gives the agency twice as much time to complete a review than is allowed by the law.

[2] Long-chain PFAS food additive petition was processed in 356 days. See Table 3.

[3] FDA reported 100% for FY2014 in the 2016 report(p. 59) but did not include the number of FAPs/CAPs reviewed. In its 2023 report, the agency reported reviewing five FAPs/CAPs (p. 61) but did not provide the percentage of reviews that had been approved, withdrawn, or placed in abeyance in 360 days.

Posted in Deep Dives, FDA / Authors: / Comments are closed

Our experience with FDA’s food chemical program reinforces alarming findings from Politico investigation

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: April 26, 2022

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals and Maricel Maffini, consultant

A powerful investigative article by Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich revealed significant structural and leadership problems at the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) food program. The article articulated what has been implicitly understood by the food safety community. It led to demands from Congress for Commissioner Robert Califf to take aggressive action and even prompted calls for a new agency focused solely on food safety.

 

“Over the years, the food side of FDA has been so ignored and grown so dysfunctional that even former FDA commissioners readily acknowledged problems. There’s a long running joke among officials: The “F” in FDA is silent.”
—Helena Bottemiller Evich, Politico article

 

In response, FDA leadership has pointed to Congress for failing to adequately fund the program and touted examples of where the agency has taken action on food safety.

Yesterday, 30 groups representing food industry leaders, and consumer groups, including EDF, joined in a call for Califf to unify the FDA’s food program under a deputy commissioner for foods with direct line authority over all food-related programs.

We have been advocating for FDA to improve the safety of chemicals added to our food for more than a decade, often working with FDA officials to push for regulatory reforms. From that narrow but deep perspective on food safety, everything we have seen reinforces the shortcomings highlighted in the Politico article. Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Health science / Tagged , | Authors: / Comments are closed

FDA reinstates ban on lead added to hair dyes

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: October 8, 2021

Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director

On October 7, FDA announced that it is reinstating its ban on lead acetate as the active ingredient in hair dyes that hide grey hair when used regularly. In 1980, the agency approved the chemical for hair dyes. In response to a color additive petition from the Environmental Defense Fund and others, in October 2018, the agency revoked its approval. Combe Inc, the maker of Grecian Formula, objected and forced the FDA to suspend its decision. With this new action, the FDA reinstates its decision effective January 6, 2022 and gives companies one year to reformulate lead acetate out of their products.

Grecian Formula reportedly stopped using lead acetate shortly before the FDA acted in 2018. From our searches, Youthair is the remaining brand that uses the chemical.

We applaud the FDA’s affirmation of its 2018 decision where it determined these products are not safe. The agency soundly rejects Combe’s arguments that low levels of lead are safe and concludes that “we have determined that there is no known level of exposure to lead that does not produce adverse effects” in adults. These adverse effects include heart and kidney damage.

People should not be spreading lead on their head! It gets through the skin where it can hurt their body in myriad of ways. While we applaud the decision, we don’t see anything in the record that explains why FDA took almost three years to reaffirm the obvious and allow consumers to unknowingly continue using the unsafe product. Therefore, it is even harder to understand why FDA chose to give Youthair another year – until January 2023 – to remove the product from the shelves.

The FDA has known for more than forty years that the lead in these hair dyes is absorbed through the scalp, especially when used every day to hide grey hair, but previously thought there was a safe level. Other federal agencies acknowledged a decade ago there is no known safe amount of exposure to lead in adults or children. The FDA’s action in 2018, reaffirmed today, brings it in line with the scientific consensus.

Beyond lead acetate hair dyes, the FDA needs to do more to drive down consumer’s exposures from all sources of lead in food and cosmetics by tightening limits on this heavy metal in common ingredients. To protect kids and adults, it needs to translate its recognition that there is no known safe level of lead exposure by updating its outdated standards for food additives, bottled water, metal cans, and brass faucets as we demanded in a petition last year. The agency’s Closer to Zero Action Plan for children’s foods is critical but not sufficient to protect adults.

Posted in FDA / Comments are closed

Lead in hair dye – one company considers it safe

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: January 4, 2019

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director

In October 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of lead acetate in hair dyes in response to a March 2017 color additive petition from EDF and other health advocates. In December, we learned that Combe, Inc., the maker of the lead-acetate based hair dye Grecian Formula, objected to FDA’s decision, requested a formal evidentiary public hearing to review the decision, and claimed the use is safe. The objection puts the FDA’s decision on hold awaiting a process that may take years to resolve. Apparently, the company thinks it is safe for men to slather skin-soluble lead on their head every couple of days and to risk exposing their families to a heavy metal for which no safe level of exposure has been identified.

Combe’s action was somewhat surprising because the company told CBS News that it removed lead acetate from its Grecian Formula “quite a long time ago,” but was unable to provide an exact date. Presumably, someone in the know updated the product’s Wikipedia page, which says Grecian Formula does not contain lead acetate as of July 2018, although an earlier version of the page said April 2018.

Whatever the date it was reformulated, why would Combe block FDA’s decision when it has long sold a lead-free brand – Just For Men – and had already reportedly removed lead from Grecian Formula? From a market standpoint, objecting to FDA’s decision benefits Youthair, Combe’s main competitor, which continues to sell a leaded-version of progressive hair dye.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Lead, Public health / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed