EDF Health

Broken GRAS: Companies ignore FDA draft guidance; Bias & conflicts of interest prevail in safety determinations

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: September 6, 2023

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals, Klara Matouskova, PhD, Consultant, and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant

What Happened?

In our new study, we evaluated Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) notices—a total of 403 between 2015-2020—that food manufacturers voluntarily submitted to FDA for review. Our goal was to determine whether industry was adhering to FDA’s Guidance on Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel.

The guidance was designed to help companies comply with the law and avoid biases and conflicts of interest when determining whether substances added to food are safe and recognized as such by the scientific community. FDA published a draft of the guidance in 2017 and finalized it essentially unchanged in December 2022.Infographic showing that a small group of only 7 people takes up 46% of available positions on panels that determine whether food chemicals can be labeled Generally Recognized As Safe.

Our study found that no GRAS notices followed the draft guidance. Specifically, we also found there were high risks of bias and conflicts of interest because the companies:

  • Had a role—either directly or through a hired third party—in
    selecting panelists that likely resulted in bias and conflicts of interest.
  • Depended on a small pool of experts in which seven individuals occupied 46% of panel positions. The seven often served together, further enhancing risk of bias.
  • Relied on panels that did not realistically reflect the diverse scientific community that evaluates chemical risks to public health—which is needed to comply with the law’s requirement that there be a “general recognition” within that community that a substance is GRAS.

Read More »

Also posted in Broken GRAS, Conflict of interest, Food, GRAS, Industry influence / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

FDA says “Cookware that exhibits any level of leachable lead upon testing is prohibited.”

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: August 15, 2023

What’s New?

For the first time, FDA has provided guidance on how to evaluate whether metal cookware is prohibited due to lead leaching into food.

As part of an investigation to find the source of elevated blood lead levels in some refugee children, the Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, Washington [1] encountered high lead levels in certain imported [2] aluminum cookware, including pressure cookers and pots & pans. The program attempted to bring this to FDA’s attention in late 2019, and submitted a formal product report to FDA in October 2021, after several attempts to contact an FDA representative directly.

In May 2022, the Program published a journal article about its findings; a year later, staff emailed FDA again seeking guidance. On June 1, 2023, FDA responded with a letter [PDF, 166KB] providing a method (see below) to evaluate lead in metal cookware. The agency also said:

  • “The marketing in interstate commerce, including importation, of cookware that exhibits any level of leachable lead upon testing is prohibited.”
  • “Neither lead nor lead-containing materials (e.g., metals, solder) are permitted under FDA regulations for use in contact with food.”
  • The Program should “feel free to share this letter or any of its contents with Amazon.com, Inc.,[3] and any other firms involved in the marketing or sale of cookware.”[4]

Why It Matters

Read More »

Also posted in Health hazards, Lead, Risk evaluation, Vulnerable populations / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Broken GRAS: FDA’s lack of post-market oversight continues to create health risks

By Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: July 11, 2023

What Happened?

In April, a company called Prime Research Reports issued a press release in which it claimed FDA had approved THP (tetrahydropiperine) as a Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) substance “for use in food products.” There is no record that FDA has either reviewed or approved THP for use in food.

The report describes Sabinsa as a manufacturer of THP and as “a major player” in that market.[1] The substance, commercially known as Cosmoperine, is derived from a highly purified extract from black pepper; the extract, which is more than 95% piperine, is also made by Sabinsa and is marketed as BioPerine. The company describes piperine as an alkaloid present in black and long pepper.

Why It Matters

First, the statement is at odds with the available evidence: there is no record of FDA reviewing the safety of THP as a GRAS substance. The only interaction we are aware of was in 2013, when Sabinsa voluntarily asked FDA to review its GRAS determination for BioPerine to be used as a flavoring agent. A few months later, Sabinsa sent a letter asking FDA to stop reviewing the safety assessment (also known as a “cease to evaluate” request). After that, there does not appear to have been any interactions between Sabinsa and FDA regarding either of its products.

Second, the statement mistakenly claims that FDA approves GRAS substances when in fact the agency issues an opinion when a manufacturer requests a review by FDA. In its opinion letters, the agency makes clear that it is not an approval.

Third, a decade ago, we identified significant safety concerns with BioPerine, the only product that FDA has had an opportunity to review although, as previously noted, that review was halted when Sabinsa withdrew its request for review. As a result, FDA did not issue an opinion. In 2013, the authors, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council at the time, sent a letter to FDA listing many issues with the GRAS notice that Sabinsa had withdrawn, including:

  • Lack of toxicology testing for the extract, which is more than 95% piperine, the active ingredient.
  • Failure to correctly interpret toxicity data in the literature, which showed that piperine is toxic to the immune system and causes reproductive and developmental toxicity in animals and cell-based studies.
  • Dismissal of human studies showing that piperine affects the metabolism of other compounds including medications by increasing their bioavailability.

Piperine is “reported to enhance the bioavailability of drugs, nutrients, and herbal extracts,” and Cosmoperine is marketed as a “bioavailability enhancer.”

The presence of these substances in food could potentially increase the bioavailability of medications in ways that healthcare professionals prescribing the drug could not anticipate. As a result, the drug might have adverse health effects from the higher effective dose.

Our Take

It is clear that BioPerine and the related Cosmoperine are highly concentrated extracts from black pepper that have been neither adequately tested nor adequately evaluated to determine their uses are safe.

We have published multiple articles describing the problems with the GRAS process. Among the most egregious of FDA’s failures are:

  • Allowing companies to withdraw a GRAS notice where the company realizes that FDA may not give it a favorable review;
  • Not proactively making the concerns publicly available[2] about the safe use of the substance;
  • Not conducting any apparent post-market oversight when FDA has concerns about the safety of a chemical.

In our Broken GRAS series we show many examples of chemicals of dubious safety that stealthily entered the food supply without any warnings.

In January, FDA Commissioner Califf announced a “new and transformative vision for the FDA Human Food Programs” These are important steps, but a real measure is ensuring that GRAS substances where FDA had safety concerns are subjected to strong oversight to protect American’s health by restricting the use of harmful chemicals such as THP.

Next Steps

We have alerted FDA to the claims and asked the agency to quickly investigate this product and its uses to protect consumers–especially those who might be using one of the medications that are affected by THP. FDA responded that it “will take a closer look and make sure this information is routed as appropriate.” We will continue to press FDA to act expeditiously to get products like this one off the market until the agency can verify its safety.

[1] We don’t know the relationship between Prime Research Reports and Sabinsa and have not heard back on a request for information.

[2] The information may be available through a Freedom of Information Act but that does not mean it is publicly available since only the requester gets the information.

Also posted in Adverse health effects, Broken GRAS, Food, GRAS, Health hazards, Industry influence, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation / Tagged , , , , , , | Authors: , / Read 1 Response

Is it time to rethink “lead-safe” and “lead-free”?

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: June 30, 2023

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund and Charlotte Brody, National Director, Healthy Babies Bright Futures

Key Message

The scientific consensus is that there is no known safe level of lead exposure, and that no environment or home is truly free of lead.

With a few exceptions, we think it is time to retire the terms “lead-safe” and “lead-free” from our vocabulary. It sends conflicting messages to the public, consumers, and decision-makers. And it may undermine our efforts to reduce children’s exposure to lead from any source.

Rationale

Collectively, we have dedicated over a half-century to protecting children from lead. During that time, we and other advocates have used different terms to communicate our goals. Often, we drew our terms from the federal government. For example:

  • “Lead-free” has been used by Congress since 1986 to define drinking water pipes with no more than 80,000 parts per million (ppm) of lead. It kept the term in 2014 when it changed the level from 80,000 to 2,500 ppm. Similarly, FDA issued guidance in 2010 allowing a “lead-free” label on pottery if it meets the agency’s limits on lead.
  • “Lead-safe” is in the title for HUD’s 1999 rule to reduce lead-based paint exposure in federally assisted EPA also refers to “lead-safe work practices” in its 2008 renovation, repair and painting (RRP) rule for residential property. In addition, EPA created a “lead-safe” logo in 2010 for certified RRP firms. And HUD, EPA, and CPSC use the term in their pamphlet given to millions of families renting or buying homes built before 1978.

As a result, terms like “lead-safe” and “lead-free” have been commonly used to describe community-wide initiatives, label houses on maps, describe the state of a house after remediation, and much more.

What does lead-free mean? It depends on who you’re asking and what you’re asking about. A contractor may understand the term to mean that a house meets the EPA definition of not having a lead hazard, but does the average resident understand the term the same way? Is it accurate to describe a house as lead-free if there is still lead in the drinking water? Or in the spices in the cabinets?

Read More »

Also posted in Contamination, Lead, Public health, Unleaded Juice / Tagged , , , , | Authors: / Read 2 Responses

FDA’s squishy definition of adverse health effects of substances in food

By Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: June 15, 2023

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

3 human figures showing stages of becoming ill. First figure is all white and standing up straight. Second figure is bent over and stomach area is red. Third figure is is all red, bent over, and appears to be vomiting.

What Happened

A recent peer-reviewed publication criticized FDA’s criteria for identifying adverse health effects associated with exposure to pathogens, chemicals, or allergens in foods. The authors gave two recent examples of the agency dismissing health concerns: a toxin created in spoiled fish that caused temporary, medically adverse health effects because they were short-term and reversible, and an additive where evidence from animal testing showed harm in only one sex. The authors concluded that the agency’s criteria are “inadequate because they are not science-based.”

Why It Matters

FDA is responsible for protecting food safety and the public’s health. In order to do that, it makes decisions whether a pathogen, chemical, or allergen causes an adverse health effect that must be avoided—so the agency’s definition of an adverse health effect is critically important. Unfortunately, FDA lacks a clear definition of the term, usually approaching it on a case-by-case basis in a manner that lacks transparency and scientific grounding.

Adverse Effects Dismissed by FDA

In 2020, the director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ food safety project argued that FDA failed to “protect Americans from preventable illnesses” because it considered that the effects caused by the fish toxin were temporary or reversible. FDA described the toxin’s effects, which ranged from facial flushing and sweating, dizziness, nausea and headache to more severe cases of blurred vision, respiratory stress, and swelling of the tongue. The Pew director reasonably added that people may require hospitalization, medical treatment due to cardiac complications, and altered blood pressure–all of which are adverse health effects.

In a 2019 final rule approving the listing of leghemoglobin as a color additive, the Center for Food Safety objected that FDA dismissed statistically significant “changes in blood chemistry, blood clotting ability, and blood globulin values” as potential health effects. In its response to the objection, the agency argued that “statistical differences seen between control animals and treatment animals due to small changes in the value of the parameter are not likely to be of biological or toxicological significance.” FDA further stated that for the color additive to cause the blood changes to be “potentially adverse” it should:

  • Show a “clear dose-response,” described as a direct relationship between the dose given and the effect observed, in other words, the higher the dose, the higher the effect; and
  • Be observed in both sexes of the species in which the substance is tested.

This argument put forth by FDA’s food safety scientists would be summarily dismissed by their colleagues on the drug side because it ignores current scientific principles: dose responses can have different shapes and there are known sex differences in response to exposures from multiple chemicals.

Our Take

This is an ongoing issue. Other organizations have defined “adverse health effects.” For example, EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) defines adverse effect as “[a] biochemical change, functional impairment, or pathologic lesion that affects the performance of the whole organism, or reduces an organism’s ability to respond to an additional environmental challenge.”

FDA’s lack of a practical definition for adverse health effect and how the agency applies it in food safety assessments has likely contributed to inconsistencies in its decision making.

Next Steps

We will continue to press the agency for transparency about what health effects it considers important to prevent and protect the health of American families. FDA should publish clear, rational, science-based criteria for determining adverse effects and periodically review them as our knowledge base advances to better inform regulatory decisions.

Also posted in Adverse health effects, Health hazards, Health policy, Health science, Public health, Regulation / Tagged , , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed

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.

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