EDF Health

EDF and others take FDA to court to demand action on carcinogenic flavors petition

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: May 17, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director, and Maricel Maffini, Independent Consultant

FDA’s priority must be resolving safety concerns with
existing chemicals over approval of new ones.

On May 2, EDF and other consumer health advocates filed a lawsuit to force the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make a final decision on our food additive petition, which asked the agency to reverse its approvals of seven carcinogenic synthetic flavors. Earthjustice is representing EDF in this petition for a writ of mandamus to the court of appeals. We did not take this action lightly. However, with the statutory deadline for a decision passing more than 20 months ago, we saw little chance that FDA would act without court oversight.

Our food additive petition narrowly focused on one specific issue where the law and science were clear, and laid out our review of both the scientific literature and the law concluding that the seven chemicals were no longer safe. FDA formally accepted the petition for filing – essentially confirming it was complete – which triggered a 180-day deadline under the statute to make a final decision. That deadline passed in August 2016 without a decision by FDA.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Health policy, Public health, Regulation / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

FDA finds more perchlorate in more food, especially bologna, salami and rice cereal

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: January 9, 2017

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) scientists published a study showing significant increases in perchlorate contamination in food sampled from 2008 and 2012 compared to levels sampled from 2003 to 2006. The amount of perchlorate infants and toddlers eat went up 34% and 23% respectively. Virtually all types of food had measurable levels of perchlorate, up from 74%. These increases are important because perchlorate threatens fetal and child brain development. As we noted last month, one in five pregnant women are already at great risk from any perchlorate exposure. The FDA study doesn’t explain the increase in perchlorate contamination. Yet, it’s important to note that there is one known factor that did change in this time period: FDA allowed perchlorate to be added to plastic packaging.

Reported perchlorate levels in food varied widely, suggesting that how the food was processed may have made a significant difference. The increase in three foods jumped out to me:

  • Bologna: At a shocking 1,557 micrograms of perchlorate per kilogram (µg/kg), this lunchmeat had by far the highest levels. Another sample had the fifth highest levels at 395 µg/kg. Yet a quarter of the other bologna samples had no measurable perchlorate. Previously, FDA reported levels below 10 µg/kg.
  • Salami: One sample had 686 µg/kg giving it a third ranking. Other samples showed much lower levels and six of the 20 had no detectable levels of perchlorate. Previously, FDA reported levels below 7 µg/kg.
  • Rice Cereal for Babies: Among baby foods, prepared dry rice cereal had the two highest levels with 173 and 98 µg/kg. Yet, 15 of the 20 samples had non-detectable levels of perchlorate. Previously, FDA reported levels less than 1 µg/kg.

The increases are disturbing in light of the threat posed by perchlorate to children’s brain development and the emerging science showing the risk at lower levels is greater than thought a decade ago. The risk is particularly significant for children in those families loyal to those brands with high levels. Unfortunately, FDA’s study does not identify the brand of food tested. Read More »

Posted in Emerging science, FDA, Food, Health policy, Perchlorate, Regulation / Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Seeing Red on Food Dyes

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: January 20, 2016

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) “Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes” report, released yesterday, makes clear that certified colors added in food are not safe at the current levels that children consume them. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the food industry, and consumers should take action to protect children from the behavior problems associated with these chemicals.

[pullquote]

What are color additives?

  • The FD&C number on a color means it is a “certified” color pursuant to 21 CFR Part 74. These colors are synthetically made from oil or coal. Decades ago, FDA determined they were safe and only certifies that each batch meets quality standards and does do not contain particularly dangerous contaminants.
  • A color additive is not safe unless there is “convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use.”
  • FDA labeling rules maintain that all added colors to food are artificial. Technically, there are no natural colors – not even beet juice – since they mask the natural color of the food.
  • FDA does not limit the amount of a certified color that can be added to food except in one case. The food manufacturer decides how much is needed.

[/pullquote]Last Friday, FDA released a stream of five consecutive tweets telling people why certified artificial color additives, commonly known by their FD&C number, are used and how to avoid them if people are sensitive to them. The tweets, while true, said nothing about who may be sensitive to the chemicals. They should have said that any child may be sensitive and that the 6.4 million children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) appear to be particularly sensitive.

So what prompted FDA’s tweets? Most likely the agency anticipated CSPI’s report “Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes” issued January 19. It follows on the organization’s 2010 “Food Dyes: Rainbow of Risks” report and its 2008 citizens petition calling on the agency to: 1) revoke its approvals of eight synthetic food dyes; 2) require warning labels on the package in the interim; and 3) correct statements about the dyes on its website and other materials.

While FDA has yet to take action on the citizens petition, the marketplace has already passed judgment. In 2015, leading food manufacturer and restaurants committed to reformulating their iconic brands to remove certified artificial colors. They follow the lead of major retailers who reformulated their private brands to remove the chemicals.

Read More »

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

Towards Safer Food Additives

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 11, 2015

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.

EDF strives to make safer food available by partnering with companies to reduce and eliminate potentially unsafe chemical food additives and supporting efforts to fix a broken regulatory system.

For many years this blog has focused on the safety of chemicals and nanomaterials used in industrial and consumer products.  Most of these substances are regulated federally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  But we also encounter chemicals in other ways, including those present in or added to food.  Such chemicals are regulated under a different law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  This blog introduces EDF’s “Behind the Label” initiative to get unsafe and questionable chemicals out of our food by using dual levers of change—corporate leadershIFIC Charts - 5-16-16ip and public policy.   Making our food trustworthy demands leadership in both the private sector and the FDA.

The food market is changing rapidly as manufacturers work to keep up with consumer concerns about what’s in our food. And it’s not just about added sugar, salt and trans fats, or whether the food was grown locally or with or without pesticides. Public campaigns increasingly put the spotlight on many chemicals commonly used in food and food packaging—food additives—with growing scientific evidence questioning the safety of their use.

A respected industry survey released in May 2015 showed that 36% of consumers rated chemicals in food as their most important food safety concern – greater than pathogens, pesticides, animal antibiotics and allergens, and up from 23% in 2014 and 9% in 2011. These concerns translated into action; 23% of consumers reported changing their buying habits (corrected from 45% on May 16, 2016). Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Health policy, Markets and Retail / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

EU gets ready to ban most BPA uses. Once again: Where’s FDA?

By EDF Blogs / Published: March 1, 2024

By Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant, and Tom Neltner, Executive Director, Unleaded Kids

Warning message written in bold red letters with words Bisphenol A Exposure. 3d illustration.

What’s Happening?

On February 9, 2024, the European Commission published a proposed regulation [PDF, 502KB] that would ban most uses of bisphenol A (BPA) in materials that contact food—including plastic and coatings applied to metal cans—and restrict other uses. Interested parties can comment on the draft until March 8, 2024. (You must register to comment.)

This proposed regulation is based on the 2023 European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) risk assessment of BPA that concluded that dietary exposures are a health concern. The proposed regulation would impact the following bisphenol-based food contact materials:

  • Plastics: Would be banned from use if made from BPA at any stage of manufacturing.1 The only exception is polysulfone resins made from a sodium salt of BPA, which are allowed for use in filtration membranes if there is no detectable migration into food.
  • Varnishes, coatings, printing inks, adhesives, ion-exchange resins, and rubbers: Use of BPA and bisphenol S (BPS)2 would be banned at any stage of manufacture. Use of BPS or other bisphenols may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. The exception to the ban is bisphenol-A diglycidyl ether (BADGE)3 made from BPA and used to make epoxy-based varnishes and coatings, which are allowed only in making materials with capacity of more than 250 liters and there is no detectable migration4 into food.
  • Recycled materials: Unintentional BPA contamination would be allowed if there is no detectable migration into food.

Why It Matters

In its 2023 reassessment, EFSA estimated that the amount of BPA that could be safely consumed daily is 20,000 times less than its 2015 estimate. Among the health problems associated with BPA exposure are harm to the immune and reproductive systems, disruption of the normal function of hormones and reduced learning and memory.

The draft rule would manage the risk of BPA uses to significantly reduce dietary exposure after considering alternatives that are technically feasible at a commercial scale.

Our Take

The European Commission’s proposed rule is an excellent example of a risk management decision that considers safety and achievability. The Commission balanced protecting human health by eliminating as many sources of BPA as fast as possible with the implementation challenges. The Commission has included transition periods to eliminate all uses of food-contact articles manufactured with BPA ranging from 18 months for final food packaging (e.g., plastics, can coating) to 10 years for repeat-use, final food contact articles used in food production equipment.

In a previous blog, we stated that Americans’ exposure to BPA from food is similar to that of Europeans. Unfortunately, FDA doesn’t share the same sense of urgency as the European Commission. While Europe is on track to ban most uses of BPA in food contact materials, FDA is failing to take action to protect our families.

EDF and our allies submitted a food additive petition [PDF, 542KB] 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 600 days overdue.

Timeline

Once the rules are finalized, compliance would be required within 18 months for most products and within 36 months for:

  • Varnishes and coatings for processed fruit, vegetable, and processed fish products.
  • Varnishes and coatings used outside of metal packaging.
  • Manufacture of repeat-use components in professional food production equipment.

The rule would also allow repeat-use, final food contact articles used in professional food production equipment to remain in service for up to 10 years.

What’s Next?

We will submit comments to the European Commission seeking clarity on some aspects of the proposal. In addition, we will continue to press FDA to make a final decision on our petition, including potentially taking legal action for unreasonable delay in responding to it.

Go Deeper

Read our blogs on BPA.

NOTES

1 The rule is inconsistent regarding status of plastics other than polysulfone. EDF will submit comments seeking clarity.

2 The Commission may expand to more bisphenols if they are added to Annex VI, Part 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 due to their harmonized classification as category 1A or 1B “mutagenic,” “carcinogenic,” “toxic to reproduction” or category 1 “endocrine disrupting” for human health.

3 BADGE (CAS No 1675-54-3) – is a type of epoxy resin manufactured from BPA.

4 Rule defines the limit of detection as 0.01 milligram of bisphenol per kilogram of food.

Posted in BPA, EFSA, FDA / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

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