EDF Health

Fatally Flawed: EDF & partners call on EPA to revoke approval for new chemicals with shocking health risks

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy / Published: August 10, 2023

 

 

A sepia-toned image showing a factory with dark smoke billowing out of multiple smokestacks.

What Happened?

EDF and other environmental groups recently asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw the approval it issued for a group of new chemicals. This approval, also known as a consent order, allows Chevron to create fuels at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, by using oils produced through a process of superheating plastic waste to break it down (a process known as pyrolysis). The consent order also allows for the use of these fuels derived from waste plastic at more than 100 locations. ProPublica published an article on the issue on August 4, 2023.

Why It Matters

EPA is required by law to provide protections against unreasonable risks posed by new chemicals. But in the consent order EPA approved the production and use of these new chemicals despite significant health risks. One of the chemicals posed a 1 in 4 risk of developing cancer for people exposed to it. Another chemical carried risks of a 7 in 100 cancer risk from eating fish contaminated by it and a greater than 1.3 in 1 cancer risk from inhaling it.

When asked about the shockingly high cancer risks it estimated, EPA claimed its cancer risk assumptions were overly conservative but failed to provide any information about what it believes are the actual risks and pointed to undefined controls under other laws as controlling the risks.

Until now, the acceptable risk standard for cancer in the general population has been 1 in 1,000,000. The risk levels EPA identified are up to 1,000,000 times greater than that. Read More »

Also posted in Adverse health effects, Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, Frontline communities, Health policy, Industry influence, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA, Vulnerable populations / Tagged , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Lead Cables: 66,000 miles overhead or underwater

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: July 26, 2023
Abandoned telecom cable leaching lead into Idaho fishing waters.

Abandoned telecom cable leaching lead into Idaho fishing waters Photo: Monique Rydel-Fortner

What’s New?

A blockbuster Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigation showed that lead-sheathed telecom cables are releasing toxic lead into water or surface soil. We are aware of more than 2,000 of these cables across the nation—and more than 300 of those pose a threat to community drinking water sources.

Recognizing the potential risks to public health, EDF, Clean Water Action, and Below the Blue asked EPA on July 17 to investigate potential harms and replace abandoned lead cables strung between telephone poles, as well as any that are accessible to children.

In response, AT&T reported that it has more than 66,000 miles of lead cables, most of which are the overhead type, with the balance running underwater. This is a stunning amount – enough to circle the earth 2.5 times!

Legislators are already demanding that telecom firms act, and EPA and the Department of Justice say they are reviewing the issue. In addition, New York Governor Kathy Hochul directed three key state agencies to investigate the risks. In response, the agencies sent letters to 246 telecom providers requesting their inventory of lead cables. I also appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box to explain the situation, EDF’s role in the investigation, and the cables’ potential risks. Read More »

Also posted in Contamination, Drinking water, Health policy, Regulation, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation / 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

Brown glass vial surrounded by pepper corns

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.

Read More »

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

EPA Should Use U.S. Chemical Safety Law to Turn Off PFAS Tap

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy / Published: June 30, 2023

The word

PFAS is a group of synthetic chemicals used in industrial processes and consumer products, including water-repellent clothing, such as outdoor wear, and food packaging. Once these “forever chemicals” are produced and used, they often make their way into the environment and our bodies. Many pose serious threats due to their toxic effects (often at trace levels) and their ability to build up in people, animals and the environment. Studies show that they are in almost all of us.

To make matters worse, people are exposed to multiple PFAS, not individual PFAS in isolation. Yet under the nation’s primary chemical safety law, EPA evaluates the safety of PFAS chemicals one at a time and does not consider the combined risks from exposures to multiple PFAS. Combined exposures increase the risk of harmful effects, thus magnifying the risks and the need for action.

Current Situation: All Costs, No Benefits

PFAS move easily throughout the environment and are difficult to destroy. They have contaminated drinking water, food, farms, wildlife, and the environment more broadly. At the local, state and federal levels, the U.S. is spending millions of dollars to clean up PFAS contamination. Some states, such as Michigan and Maine, are trying to recoup the costs their residents have had to bear to clean-up PFAS contamination of their water and land. The federal government is also taking action to address the widespread PFAS contamination. The costs for cleaning up PFAS contamination are imposed on society by the domestic producers, importers and users of PFAS who profit from their production and use.

Yet, despite the well-documented risks and costs to society of these chemicals, companies still continue to produce, import, and use PFAS. It is time to ban all PFAS or—if there are truly essential uses for these chemicals—limit how they are produced, imported and used so that their impact on us and the environment is minimal.

Urgent Need: Revisit, Reassess, and Regulate All PFAS

While EPA has recently tightened up approvals for new PFAS entering the market, it has yet to take significant action on those that are already on the market, which includes the hundreds of PFAS the agency approved over the past few decades. It is clear these PFAS have not been produced responsibly as demonstrated by the environmental contamination associated with many of the PFAS manufacturing facilities. And yet, many of these PFAS are still on the market. They are being produced and released into the environment, are in products we use every day, and continue to contaminate us and our environment.

Many of EPA’s approvals were made 10 to 20 years ago, before we had a full picture of the pervasiveness and degree of PFAS contamination. The data on the extent of the environmental contamination of these persistent PFAS, their ability to move through the environment, and the significant difficulty in destroying them was not as robust as it is today. Furthermore, mounting evidence shows that even trace levels of PFAS can cause developmental issues in children, reduced fertility, hormonal disruptions, and certain types of cancer.

In addition, these approvals did not consider risks to vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and children as currently required by the law. Many communities are exposed to multiple PFAS, particularly those who live, work and play near where PFAS are made and used.

Addressing the production, import and use of PFAS would limit further pollution of our water supplies, safeguard the health of our communities, and be consistent with other strong EPA actions to address PFAS, including its recent robust proposed drinking water standards.

Effective regulation of these harmful chemicals at their source would also accelerate efforts to seek out and adopt safer alternatives. Leaving chemicals with such well-documented harms on the market makes it more difficult for innovative, safer substitutes to enter it. Failing to address these risks in effect puts a thumb on the scale in support of older harmful technologies.

Our Take

EPA should re-evaluate each of the PFAS it has approved. During that re-evaluation, EPA should use the best available science and consider the full picture of PFAS exposure. Considering each PFAS in isolation rather than the multiple PFAS people, particularly those in vulnerable groups, are exposed to will underestimate their risk.

EPA should use the Toxic Substances Control Act to take action to ban these legacy PFAS, or restrict them if the uses are truly essential, rather than continuing to allow the production, import and use of these demonstrably harmful “forever chemicals.”

Go Deeper

Learn more about EDF’s concerns about PFAS and read our follow-up blog  on how EPA can use TSCA to turn off the PFAS tap.

EPA’s information on PFAS

Also posted in Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, Contamination, Cumulative impact, Cumulative risk assessment, Emerging testing methods, Food, Food packaging, Health science, PFAS, Public health, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA, Vulnerable populations / Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

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, FDA, 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, FDA, Food contact materials, Food packaging, Plastic, Public health, Reproductive toxicity / Tagged , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed