EDF Health

FDA sued for delay in deciding perchlorate food additive petition

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: March 31, 2016

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

[pullquote]At the end of 2014, FDA agreed to consider a food additive petition from NGOs to ban perchlorate – a chemical that can impair a child’s brain development – as an additive to food packaging. The agency had 180 days to act, but fifteen months later, the petitioners are still waiting for a response. Today, they sued.[/pullquote]

It’s been 15 months since a group of environmental, consumer, and public health advocates petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove the agency’s approval of perchlorate uses in packaging.

Traditionally, FDA’s food additive petition process has been the exclusive purview of food manufacturers seeking approval to use new chemicals or expand uses of already approved chemicals in food production. However, nothing in the law prohibits the public from using the process to ban or restrict the use of certain chemicals. Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, FDA, Food, General interest, Health policy, Perchlorate, Regulation / Comments are closed

Six ways FDA can do better on food safety

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy, Liora Fiksel, Project Manager, Healthy Communities and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant / Published: February 6, 2025

Refrigerated groceriesWhat Happened: 
Bipartisan support is growing for food safety reform as U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering comments on a new process for reassessing chemicals already on the market . On January 21, EDF submitted comments to FDA on how the agency should strengthen its proposal for a process to ensure the safety of existing ingredients in the market. While EDF supports modernizing FDA’s Human Food Program processes and methods, the current proposal falls short on transparency, efficiency, and scientific rigor.  

Why it Matters:
The public deserves a systematic, science-based approach to food chemical safety. FDA’s current process is outdated, opaque, and reactive rather than proactive. Delays in addressing chemical safety are common, with FDA often taking years to act on food additive petitions and chemical reassessments. Many food chemicals were approved decades ago using little or no data and have not been reevaluated since.    

FDA often relies only on its own studies, while ignoring or disregarding findings from other authoritative institutions such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), seemingly unable to acknowledge modernizing science. This failure to consider the full picture and the best available science undermines public health.  

Additionally, the agency fails to consider the cumulative effects of multiple related substances. People aren’t exposed to single chemicals in isolation, yet the FDA continues to evaluate them as if they are.  

While FDA leadership has emphasized that food chemical safety is a top priority for the Human Foods Program, historical lack of action has driven states like California to implement its own food additive regulations. This state-by-state approach creates a patchwork of rules that highlights the urgency for stronger federal leadership to protect all Americans from toxic chemicals. 

Our Take: 
FDA’s proposed process is a step forward but needs significant improvements.  

  1. FDA should set up a true prioritization process

    • FDA’s proposed process doesn’t identify which of the 10,000+ chemicals authorized to be used in food will be reassessed or why. FDA needs to outline specific criteria for prioritizing chemicals (e.g., risks to children’s health, endocrine disruption, biomonitoring data); start with high-priority chemicals identified by authoritative bodies like U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology (NTP) Program; and make the process transparent by publishing rankings and methodology. Other agencies such as EPA have done this; FDA could build on their successful approaches.  
  2. Commit to comprehensive assessments 
    • FDA proposes using “focused assessments” based on limited data, skipping peer review and public transparency. FDA should commit to comprehensive assessments that use all available evidence and limit focused assessments to when immediate action is needed. 
  3. Enforce the Delaney Clause 
    • FDA must prioritize removing carcinogens, as mandated by law, without redundant reassessments. 
  4. Embed peer review and public input 
    • FDA should establish a scientific advisory committee, hold public comment periods, and ensure robust, external peer review for influential decisions.
  5. Separate risk assessment from risk management 
    • FDA should create an independent office to ensure unbiased chemical risk reassessments to avoid bias from teams that approve chemicals for market use. 
  6. Consider cumulative effects 
    • FDA often assesses chemicals in isolation, ignoring how we are exposed to multiple chemicals at the same time in real life. FDA should evaluate combined chemicals exposures, as required by law.

While developing this process, FDA can take immediate action on priority chemicals. EDF and others have already petitioned the agency to act on harmful phthalates, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), cancer-causing solvents (including methylene chloride), and titanium dioxide, BPA and lead. These toxic chemicals do not belong in our food. With growing bipartisan support for stronger food safety regulations, FDA has an obligation to be a leader in this space.  About two-thirds of American adults across political ideologies “strongly or somewhat favor” restricting or reformulating processed foods to remove added sugars and dyes signifying wide support for greater regulation on food additives.  

Next Steps: 
It is critical that FDA reevaluates its processes for determining the safety of chemicals in our food. EDF will continue to pressure FDA to act now on high-priority food chemicals, using the best available science and enforcing laws that effectively protect people’s health.  

Go Deeper:
Read the full version of the comments EDF submitted to FDA here. 

Posted in FDA, Food / Authors: , , / Comments are closed

Why are four notorious carcinogens approved by FDA for food?

By EDF Blogs / Published: February 1, 2024

By Liora Fiksel, Project Manager, Healthy Communities, and Lisa Lefferts, Environmental Health Consultant

Pregnant woman rests a cup of coffee on her belly.

While exposure data are scant, people who are choosing decaf coffee during pregnancy or for other health reasons may not realize that some popular brands contain methylene chloride.

What’s Happening?

On December 21, 2023, FDA filed a food-additive petition and a color-additive petition submitted by EDF and partners that asks FDA to revoke its approval for four carcinogenic chemicals approved for use in food.

There is broad agreement that benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride, and ethylene dichloride are carcinogenic,1 and federal law2 is clear: additives that cause cancer in humans or animals are not considered “safe.” All the chemicals have been identified as causing cancer in humans or animals since the 1970s and 1980s.3 Read More »

Posted in Adverse health effects, Carcinogenic, Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, FDA, Food, Health hazards, Public health, Vulnerable populations / Tagged , , , , , , | Authors: / Read 9 Responses

European Commission plans to ban food uses of BPA. We ask again: Where is FDA?

By Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: June 9, 2023

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

What Happened?

On June 2, the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union (EU) responsible for proposing legislation and implementing decisions, announced it is preparing an initiative that “will impose a ban on the use of BPA [bisphenol A] in food contact materials (FCMs), including plastic and coated packaging.” It also said it would “address the use of other bisphenols in FCMs to avoid replacing BPA with other harmful substances.” The Commission’s proposal is based on the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) scientific opinion that exposure to BPA is a “concern for human health.”

Why It Matters

In April, EFSA concluded that Europeans were exposed to levels of BPA from food that were 100 to 1,000 times greater than the estimated safe amount, and that this exposure could lead to an overactive immune system producing out-of-control inflammation. BPA was also associated with disrupting the endocrine system, harming reproduction, and reducing learning and memory. The immune system was most sensitive to BPA exposure. Recognizing these risks, the Commission moved quickly to protect Europeans’ public health by banning uses of BPA.

Our Take

Americans’ exposure to BPA from food is similar to that in Europe. Unfortunately, FDA doesn’t share the same sense of urgency to protect our families as the European Commission is demonstrating by its actions. While Europe is moving forward to ban the use of BPA in food contact materials, the FDA has failed to take action.

EDF and our allies submitted a food additive petition asking the agency to limit BPA exposure from food by revoking approvals for using BPA in adhesives and can coatings and to setting strict limits on using BPA in plastic that contacts food. FDA filed the petition on May 2, 2022 and has not made a final decision on it despite a 180-day statutory deadline. It is now more than 400 days overdue.

In January, FDA Commissioner Califf announced “a new and transformative vision for the FDA Human Food Programs” which includes a Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods with “decision-making authority over policy, strategy and regulatory program activities.” These are important steps, but a real measure is making timely decisions to protect American’s health by restricting the use of toxic chemicals such as BPA.

Pile of silver metal food cans with no labels

Next Steps

We will continue to press FDA to make a final decision on the petition, including potentially taking legal action for unreasonable delay in responding to our petition.

Posted in BPA, EFSA, Endocrine disruptors, FDA, Food contact materials, Food packaging, Health hazards, Plastic, Public health, Reproductive toxicity / Tagged , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed

European Food Safety Authority reaffirms that BPA uses for food are not safe. Where is FDA?

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant / Published: April 19, 2023

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

Warning message written in bold red letters with words Bisphenol A Exposure. 3d illustration.

What Happened?

Today, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finalized its Re-evaluation of the Risks to Public Health Related to the Presence of Bisphenol A (BPA) in Foodstuffs report. After considering public comments on its November 2021 draft, the agency reaffirmed its conclusion that Europeans of all ages are exposed to BPA at levels 100 to 1,000 times greater than EFSA considers to be safe.

Why It Matters

EFSA found that consumers’ dietary exposure should be less than 0.2 nanograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day (ng/kg-bw/day) to protect their immune systems from harm.1 Although EFSA didn’t analyze the reality for U.S. consumers, we used FDA’s 2014 estimated dietary exposure for BPA (the most recent available) to calculate that Americans’ exposure is 1,000 times greater than what EFSA deems safe.

Our Take

EFSA’s analysis is primarily based on scientific evidence that FDA had not considered in previous reviews. With the final report in place, EFSA has completed a rigorous, transparent, and comprehensive risk assessment. FDA now has no excuse for delaying action on a food additive petition submitted by EDF and our partners that the agency agreed to consider on May 2, 2022. That petition requested that FDA revoke its approvals for using BPA in adhesives and can coatings and set strict limits on using it in plastic that contacts food. FDA has not yet responded.

EFSA’s Conclusions

EFSA found that extremely low exposures to BPA can lead to an overactive immune system producing out-of-control inflammation. BPA was also associated with disrupting the endocrine system, harming reproduction, and reducing learning and memory. The immune system was most sensitive to BPA exposure.

After calculating a safe level of BPA—known as TDI (tolerable daily intake)—that would prevent anticipated harm, EFSA compared it against the estimated dietary exposure of the European population. The agency concluded that “both the mean and the 95th percentile dietary exposures in all age groups exceeded the TDI by two to three orders of magnitude.”

Putting BPA New Safe Level in Context

EFSA’s safe dose of 0.2 ng/kg-bw/day is extremely low. It may be useful to compare it to exposure from drinking water. For an adult weighing 120-pounds who drinks 2 liters of water a day, it would take only 1.2 parts per trillion of BPA to exceed the safe level.2

Next Steps

We will press FDA to act with greater urgency on our overdue petition. We are also looking at whether there is increased risk to communities near where BPA is made or processed.

NOTES

1 The limit was 0.04 ng/kg-bw/day in the draft EFSA report.

2 0.2 ng/kg-bw/day * 60 kg / 2 liters = 1.2 ng/L = 1.2 ppt. This does not account for other sources of BPA in the diet.

 

 

Posted in BPA, EFSA, Emerging science, Emerging testing methods, Environment, FDA, Health science, Public health / 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