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

Posted in Congress, Developmental toxicity, Endocrine disruptors, FDA, 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.

 

 

Posted in BPA, EFSA, Emerging science, Emerging testing methods, Environment, FDA, Health science, Public health / Tagged , , , | Authors: , / Read 1 Response

Broken GRAS: FDA’s half-step to limit bias and conflicts of interest in GRAS determinations may backfire

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

Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, consultant

What Happened? FDA finalized a long awaited guidance for industry in December to help reduce conflicts of interest and bias when a chemical manufacturer chooses to convene an expert panel to assess whether a new chemical additive is generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Why It Matters: As written, FDA’s Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel guidance is excellent. If food companies convene GRAS panels consistent with the guidance, the panels’ evaluations will be more credible because they should have less of the pervasive bias and conflicts of interest that plague the current system and all too often result in unsafe chemicals being added to food. But that’s a big if.

Our Take: Unfortunately, we think the guidance is likely to backfire because of the limited scope — FDA explicitly makes GRAS panels optional – a choice the agency made when it finalized the GRAS rule in 2016. Chemical manufacturers will simply avoid convening GRAS panels, relying solely on their employees or a consulting firm they hire to conduct these safety evaluations. These employees and consultants typically have significant bias and conflicts of interest because positive opinions help their employer or client. We raised this issue in comments to FDA, calling for the best practices to apply to everyone involved in the safety evaluation process. FDA did not address our comments in their recommended best practices in the revised final guidance.

While making GRAS panels optional is a serious problem, a more fundamental concern is that FDA may not have an opportunity to review the GRAS safety evaluations made by employees or hire consultants because the company chooses not to notify the agency. FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety fails to consider just how often companies choose not to tell the agency that a new chemical is being added to food. In our Broken GRAS series, we provided six examples of the serious risk posed by the GRAS system, the most public being hundreds of people sickened due to consumption of tara flour, an ingredient in a Daily Harvest frozen meal. Last November, using marketing materials we showed FDA that the number of new chemicals bypassing its review likely outnumber those voluntarily submitted to the agency.

We see no evidence that the agency systematically investigates or even audits the GRAS determinations that bypass their review despite promises made by the agency over the years and a scathing 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office calling for action.

Next Steps: In his effort to reform FDA’s dysfunctional food safety program, FDA Commissioner Califf told a reporter that “I want to throw in chemical safety as another really, really important area for the future – for humankind, really – and where science is evolving rapidly.”[1] If he follows through, fixing GRAS is an important step to rebuild consumer confidence and reduce the ongoing risk to public health. If he fails, the agency will continue to be hamstrung in preventing health risks posed by chemicals of unknown safety.

Go deeper: Broken GRAS series, Neltner et al (2013) Conflicts of Interest in Approvals of Additives to Food Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe: Out of Balance; Toxic Free Act; Food Chemical Reassessment Act.

[1] FoodFix, January 31, 2023 edition.

Updated April 9, 2023 to add link for Broken GRAS series.

Posted in Broken GRAS, Conflict of interest, FDA / Tagged , , , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response

Anti-androgenic chemicals as a class of related substances with cumulative toxicological effects

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 14, 2022

Maricel Maffini, consultant, and Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director

Scientists and regulators have known for decades that certain chemicals disrupt the actions of male hormones—identified collectively as androgens—in the body. Because of their effects, these chemicals are called anti-androgens or anti-androgenic chemicals.

During gestation, fetal testes begin producing testosterone, the critical hormone required to develop reproductive organs and genitalia. Insufficient production of testosterone leads to malformation of the genital tract that may need corrective surgery in infant boys and may result in reproductive health problems later in life. Ortho-phthalates (aka phthalates), known to interfere with the production of fetal testosterone, are considered anti-androgenic chemicals.

Although phthalates are perhaps the most recognizable group of anti-androgenic chemicals in the diet, there are others, including bisphenol A (BPA), propyl paraben, and certain pesticides used in food crops. Because they cause similar harmful effects, namely adverse health outcomes for male reproductive system, their safety assessment must take into account the cumulative effects of similar substances in the diet as established by law. But what does “cumulative effect” mean? Below, we use a recent study to explain what it means, why it is important, and why FDA is failing.

Biology is not math and the concept of something from nothing Read More »

Posted in Adverse health effects, FDA, Phthalates / Tagged , , , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response

FDA Acknowledged Ortho-Phthalates Could Be Grouped Into Classes For Safety, Then Punted

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: September 16, 2022

Maricel Maffini, consultant and Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director

In May, FDA decided to allow continued use of nine ortho-phthalates in food packaging and processing equipment but punted on deciding whether or not using those phthalates is safe. We’ve written about the petitions that resulted in the decision, along with the agency’s decision to “abandon” the use of 19 other phthalates (here, here, here, and here). We’ve also written about how phthalates that industry and FDA say are no longer on the market are showing up in our food (here and here). Today, however, we focus on whether those nine phthalates are a class of related substances—and the implications for public health if they are.

FDA’s obligation to evaluate related chemicals as a class

FDA’s regulations state that additives “that cause similar or related pharmacological effects will be regarded as a class, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as having additive toxic effects.” In denying our petition, FDA acknowledged that some phthalates could be in a class of related substances. For example, FDA described studies showing that seven phthalates reduced testosterone production – an effect called antiandrogenicity – during fetal development. This caused malformation of the male reproductive system (primarily malformed genitals in male infants). The agency balked at declaring all phthalates anti-androgenic because four of them did not show that effect.[1]

But rather than move forward with a safety assessment of the use of the antiandrogenic phthalates as a class of chemicals with similar toxicity, FDA dropped the issue, implicitly sending the message the chemicals are safe. This is contrary to the agency’s obligation. When making a final decision on a food additive petition that allows the use of a substance, FDA must explicitly decide the use is safe after considering the cumulative effect of it and related substances in the diet.[2]

In contrast to FDA’s failure to act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, responding to safety concerns, took action five years earlier and banned use of antiandrogenic phthalates in children’s products.

A phthalate scorecard: Where we stand on which phthalates can be used and their health effects

The table below provides a scorecard for the nine phthalates that remain in use. Of those substances, studies showed that seven were associated with developmental effects, including four which have antiandrogenic effects. Two phthalates were never studied for developmental effects.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food / Tagged , | Comments are closed

Broken GRAS: FDA must declare abandoned uses of ortho-phthalates are not GRAS.

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: August 25, 2022

Maricel Maffini, EDF consultant and Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director

This blog is the sixth in our Broken GRAS series where we explore the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) voluntary notification system for novel chemicals added to food.

In May, FDA removed its approval for all uses of 19 ortho-phthalates (aka phthalates) and some uses for two more because it agreed with the industry petition claiming the uses had been abandoned. During the comment period when the petition was filed and again when the decision was published, Earthjustice, EDF, and others warned FDA that despite the removal of approvals, a company could still use any of the abandoned phthalates without the agency’s knowledge by determining on its own that the use was Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).

In its decision, FDA implicitly acknowledged that this could indeed happen. After explaining what a GRAS safety determination[1] entails and how its voluntary GRAS notification program[2] works, the agency said:

In the future, if a manufacturer wishes to establish safe conditions of use for one or more of these substances in food contact applications, we expect the manufacturer to submit either a food additive petition or a food contact substance notification prior to market entry because these intended uses were previously authorized under section 409 of the FD&C Act.[3]

Since the agency has no way of knowing that a company determined a substance’s use was GRAS or that it was actually in use, FDA’s expectation is little more than a hope. The agency’s own studies show that the abandoned phthalates show up in food and in food contact materials. Many other studies have shown the same thing, including one that found an unapproved phthalate in fast food.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food / Tagged , , | Comments are closed