EDF Health

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, FDA, Food, Food packaging, 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, FDA, Public health / Tagged , , , | Authors: , / Read 1 Response

National Teflon Day—Seriously?!

By Lauren Ellis / Published: April 7, 2023

What’s National Teflon Day?

According to National Day Calendar, yesterday (April 6th) was “National Teflon Day”—a day to “celebrate” the accidental discovery in 1938 of a chemical called polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE for short)—better known by the product it became associated with, Teflon™.

Two 3D emoji rolling their eyes.

Teflon™ is PFAS Wrapped in a Bow

PTFE, the main component of Teflon™, is a fluorinated polymer that belongs to the PFAS chemical class—aka “forever chemicals.” PTFE is extremely heat- and stick-resistant—properties that lend themselves to a variety of uses, ranging from nonstick pans to semiconductors.

While some argue that PTFE itself does not present a health risk when used properly, the harms of PTFE become clear when you look across the chemical’s lifecycle—particularly the ways it’s produced and how it’s disposed of.

The Harms of PTFE Production

Harmful PFAS are used to produce PTFE and are also byproducts of the production process—exposing workers and surrounding communities.

PFOA—a notoriously toxic PFAS linked to cancer and heart disease—was used to manufacture PTFE for decades. In response to public pressure to phase out PFOA due to its harms, companies created other PFAS to replace PFOA—such as GenX, which has similar health effects as its predecessor. In addition to these harmful inputs, toxic PFAS byproducts are also created and released during the manufacturing of PTFE.

Decades of manufacturing PTFE have led to widespread PFAS contamination of our environment and our bodies.

The Harms of PTFE Disposal

At the end of the chemical lifecycle, fluoropolymers like PTFE may end up in a landfill—say, when you throw away your old Teflon™ pan. Over time, particles begin to disintegrate, leading to contamination of landfill liquids with PFAS that can then make their way into soil and drinking water.

Waste containing PTFE may also be incinerated. Burning of any type of PFAS is known to generate many other harmful PFAS—including potent greenhouse gases, such as tetrafluoromethane (which has a warming potential 6,500 times that of carbon dioxide).

Next Steps

Given the public health and climate effects of PTFE throughout its lifecycle, the next steps are clear: 1) Stop producing PTFE and other fluoropolymers for uses where there are clear alternatives; and 2) Stop celebrating the discovery of Teflon™ and the explosion of PFAS products (and pollution) that followed.

Also posted in Environment, Public health / Authors: / Comments are closed

Unleading Baby Food: FDA’s proposed limits are a positive step, but…

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: March 1, 2023

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

What Happened: FDA recently released draft action levels for lead in foods intended for babies and young toddlers.1 Action levels represent the point above which FDA is likely to regard food as adulterated – essentially unsafe – and seek a recall. This is a key step in implementing FDA’s Closer to Zero Action Plan.

  • Lead limits would be 10 parts per billion (ppb) for most foods.
  • Limits would be 20 ppb for dry infant cereals and single-ingredient root vegetable products, because these products may have greater lead contamination levels. (Root vegetables are primarily carrots and sweet potatoes.)

The new action levels do not apply to juices; FDA proposed limits on those in April 2022.

Why It Matters: There is no safe level of lead in the diet.

For young children living in homes without lead pipes or lead paint, diet is the primary source of their lead exposure. FDA makes clear in the proposal that:

“Even low lead exposure can harm children’s health and development, specifically the brain and nervous system. Neurological effects of lead exposure during early childhood include learning disabilities, behavior difficulties, and lowered IQ. Lead exposures also may be associated with immunological, cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive and/or developmental effects. Because lead can accumulate in the body, even low-level chronic exposure can be hazardous over time.”

Lead can enter the food chain through multiple sources, including crops grown in contaminated soil and/or irrigated with contaminated water, atmospheric deposition from industrial activities, and old food-processing equipment that contains lead. The objective is to get exposure closer to zero.

Our Take: We applaud FDA’s proposed limits, which are more protective than the European Union’s 2021 standards. BUT…on the flip side:

  • FDA failed to set action levels for popular grain-based snacks, like teething biscuits and snack puffs. The agency needs to rectify this failure with all deliberate speed.
  • More protective action levels are achievable, especially for non-rice cereals and for foods that don’t contain rice or root vegetables.
  • Proposed action levels do not apply to multiple categories of foods, including:
  • FDA’s justification for the draft action levels lacks transparency—undermining both credibility of the levels and the likelihood industry will comply with them.

In addition, USDA and industry need to expand their support for research on the methods for growing, harvesting, and processing root vegetables, rice, and quinoa to further reduce lead contamination in these important foods. Research should include both store-bought and homemade baby foods.

Go Deeper: Visit our new Deep Dives blog to see our 3-part series, which provides a more detailed analysis of FDA’s proposal—including our recommendations for setting more protective limits and improving the transparency and credibility of the agency’s process of setting action levels.

NOTES
1 FDA’s guidance refers to babies and young children. Younger than two is a very narrow definition of young children, especially since children up to age six are particularly vulnerable to the harm that lead causes to their brains. Other federal agencies set standards for this broader age range. Toddlers are generally considered to be between 1 and 3 years of age. Therefore, we use the term “young toddlers” to avoid confusion.

Revised on March 21 to correct quote.

Also posted in Deep Dives, FDA, Health policy, Public health, Unleaded Juice / Read 1 Response

Introducing Deep Dives—EDF’s New Platform for In-Depth Scientific & Policy Analyses on Environmental Health

By Paige Baker / Published: March 1, 2023

What’s New? Today we’re launching a new digital channel for the die-hard science and policy wonks in our midst! Deep Dives is a new, long-form blog site that will offer readers in-depth scientific analyses, hard data, and practical policy prescriptions from our top environmental health experts. The authors are Environmental Defense Fund experts in air quality, chemistry, epidemiology, law, public health, and more.Illustration of a pink brain wearing glasses on a bright yellow background

Why It Matters: We have multiple audiences for our content—and data tell us they have very different information needs and preferences about format.

We are committed to giving everyone the information they want in the format they prefer—and that led us to create Deep Dives.

Here’s the Deal: On average, only about 5% of web visitors read to the bottom of any particular piece of internet content. That’s why we have moved this blog to short-form content that tells you what’s happening and why it’s important from the jump. We give you the gist, and we try to keep it under 500 words.

But we also have a specialized audience of scientists, policymakers and implementers, academics, and advocates who value the policy nuances and scientific details. The people in this group want the meaty content and all the details—and, if they are interested in the subject, they will read to the end of the post, no matter how long it is.

If that describes you, Deep Dives was conceived and created for you!

What’s Next? We may be creating a new space for the self-described geeks and wonks, but we’ll continue to give you the skinny here—and all visitors are welcome in both spaces! Be sure to subscribe to this blog to receive email notifications of new Deep Dives blogs.

Last one in is a rotten egg!


Illustration of two French bulldogs under water, wearing swimming goggles, surrounded by a colorful coral reef.

Welcome to our new Deep Divers!

Also posted in Deep Dives, Health policy, Public health / Comments are closed

EPA Should Address Cumulative Risks from New Chemicals

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy / Published: January 11, 2023

Names of blog authors: Maria Doa, PhD, Sr. Director, Chemicals Policy, and Lariah Edwards, PhD, Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University

What’s Happening? EPA’s current safety assessments of new chemicals proposed for market entry often fall short of effectively protecting all members of the public from risk because they don’t consider that we may be exposed to closely related chemicals that cause similar harms.

Recent Example: EPA proposed rules requiring notification of significant new uses for a group of new chemicals. Two of these chemicals, known as trimellitate esters, are very closely related, and would be expected to cause very similar harms and have very similar uses—so that people exposed to one chemical would likely be exposed to the other. Despite this, EPA did not consider the chemicals together or even use the information it had on one to inform its understanding of the safety of the other.

This doesn’t make sense.

Even though EPA said that one chemical was intended to be used as a lubricant and the other as a plasticizer (a chemical that makes plastics more flexible), it is likely that both could be used as a plasticizer or a lubricant. They may be used together or turn up in similar consumer products, such as a car’s dashboard. Further, both chemicals are very closely related to yet another plasticizer used in the auto industry, but it appears that EPA considered these nearly interchangeable chemicals in isolation from one another.

Items that require plasticizers for production. They include seats in cars, rain boots, a garden hose, medical gloves, an exercise ball, and rolls of wallpaper.

In fact, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is required to identify such “reasonably foreseen uses,” such as ending up in the same product.

Why It Matters: Evaluating chemicals in isolation likely underestimates the exposures and risks workers, consumers, and frontline communities face. Doing so also fails to make use of all the best available science, since information on each of these two chemicals (as well as the one already being used) could inform the safety determination for the other.

Considering the combined risks from similar chemicals is not new. EPA is already doing this for another group of closely related chemicals—phthalates. Phthalates have long been widely used in a range of consumer products and are detected in almost all our bodies. Phthalates are known to impact male reproductive health. EPA is joining the ranks of other federal agencies that have considered the cumulative risks they pose.

Our Take: EPA should not stop at phthalates. They can and should be incorporating cumulative approaches from the very beginning of a chemical’s regulatory life. Considering the impact of combined exposures does not need to be complicated and EPA could make such a consideration without much extra effort.

EPA can take a first step toward doing this by considering the potential for cumulative risks when finalizing its regulation on the significant new uses for these two new closely related chemicals.

Go Deeper: Read EDF’s response to EPA’s proposed new SNURs. And check out our Cumulative Risk Assessment Framework.

Also posted in Environment, Industry influence, Public health, TSCA / Comments are closed