EDF Health

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

Representatives Call For FDA Public Hearing on Phthalates

By Joanna Slaney and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant / Published: June 6, 2023

By. Joanna Slaney, Senior Director, Federal Affairs, and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant

U.S. Capitol dome framed by trees

Source: A. Paige Baker, ShutterSights.com©

What Happened?

On May 19, Reps. Katie Porter, Steve Cohen, Nanette Diaz Barragán, Earl Blumenauer, and Raúl Grijalva issued a letter [PDF, 300KB] to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf calling on FDA to “act expeditiously to protect the public from the health risks posed by phthalates in food and food packaging.”

They asked the FDA to hold a public hearing on ortho-phthalates (phthalates), chemicals associated with disruptions to the development of the male reproductive system and neurodevelopment, among other health effects.

Why It Matters

In 2021, Reps. Porter and Lieu led a letter with 12 colleagues urging FDA to take action on phthalates in food and cosmetics. That letter, in part, called on FDA to take action on a 2016 petition filed by EDF and allied environmental health organizations asking FDA to revoke its approval for all uses of phthalates in food packaging and processing equipment.

In May 2022, after the petitioners sued, FDA denied the petition. The petitioners formally objected to the decision and requested a public hearing pursuant to FDA’s regulations. The agency has not provided any timeline for acting on the objections.

Request for a Public Hearing

The Representatives stated in the letter submitted last month that  FDA’s decision denying the petition was flawed. “[W]e are deeply concerned about the denial, which was made without deciding whether the remaining approved uses of phthalates in food and food packaging are safe.” (Emphasis original)

They reminded Commissioner Califf of his recent statement that chemical safety is a “really, really important area for the future – for humankind, really – and where science is evolving rapidly,” urging FDA to hold a public hearing on two areas of concern:

  • The agency’s failure to evaluate the safety of phthalates as it was legally required to do before denying the 2016 petition. The letter stated, “failing to evaluate the safety of phthalates is an abdication of the FDA’s continuing obligation to oversee the safety of the food supply.”
  • FDA’s failure to address new toxicity information that raises significant questions about the safety of phthalates. Phthalates are associated with numerous health issues, including reproductive and developmental toxicity, endocrine disruption, immune toxicity, and epigenetic alterations. The letter stated, “the denial of the petition fails to acknowledge, let alone analyze, the dozens of peer-reviewed studies that underscore the toxicity of the phthalates that remain approved for food contact use.”

Next Steps

EDF and our allies will continue to press FDA to hold a public hearing on the safety of phthalates used in food packaging and processing equipment.

Go Deeper

EDF blogs on phthalates

Also posted in Congress, Developmental toxicity, Endocrine disruptors, Food, Food packaging, Health science, Phthalates, Public health, Public hearing, Regulation, 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.

 

 

Also posted in BPA, EFSA, Emerging science, Emerging testing methods, Environment, 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.

Also posted in Deep Dives / Authors: / Comments are closed