EDF Health

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

Will we take this best chance ever to fix the law that helped bring about DuPont’s PFOA debacle?

By / Published: January 11, 2016

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

A remarkable exposé in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine documents the “brazen, decades-long” withholding by DuPont of mounting evidence of widespread exposure to and health effects from one of its signature chemicals (nicknamed PFOA) used in manufacture of its line of Teflon brand products.

The article is compelling in many respects, not the least of which is its scathing indictment of the federal laws that are supposed to protect Americans from toxic chemical exposures.  In particular, the article highlights the deep failures of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – now limping into its 40th year of existence without ever having been substantially amended.  TSCA is the law that – in principle – regulates most uses of PFOA and other so-called “industrial chemicals,” thousands of which are widely used in everyday consumer products and materials ranging from household cleaners to furniture to paint to electronics.

The article’s focus on TSCA is more than justified:  PFOA is one of 62,000 chemicals that were already on the market when TSCA passed in 1976.  All of these chemicals were “grandfathered” under the law, effectively presumed safe without any requirement that they be tested or reviewed for safety.  And while, as evidence of harm and widespread exposure mounted, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did conduct a review of PFOA (which more than a decade later is still only in draft form), its authority under TSCA is so weak that it has not even attempted to use that authority to restrict any uses of the chemical, instead having to negotiate a gradual voluntary phase-out.  Indeed, EPA hasn’t tried to regulate any existing chemical under TSCA since 1991, when a court threw out its regulation of the known killer asbestos, on the grounds that EPA had not met its burden of proof of harm under TSCA.

Not mentioned in the article, however, is that for the first time ever Congress is on the verge of finally reforming TSCA.  Reform bills have passed both the Senate and the House, and negotiations toward a final reconciled bill are expected to get underway any day now.

While no single law could by itself have prevented the tragic story of PFOA from unfolding, provisions of one or both bills would go a long way to help prevent such events from happening again.  Let me mention some of the most important:   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Read 3 Responses

Senators clear the air on “early preemption” under the Senate TSCA reform bill

By / Published: January 5, 2016

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

In the immediate aftermath of the Senate’s unanimous passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) on December 17, 2015, three of the key Democratic cosponsors of that bill – Senators Whitehouse (RI) , Booker (NJ) and Merkley (OR) – participated in a colloquy to discuss one of the most contentious – and widely misunderstood – provisions of the Senate bill:  the extent to which it would preempt states from acting during review of a high-priority chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

That colloquy ran in the next day’s Congressional Record.  I am including it at the end of this post in its entirety; it explains the Senators’ successful effort to limit preemption of state authority in the final bill – including by narrowing the conditions states must meet to act during EPA review of a chemical essentially to constraints on state authority already imposed by the U.S. Constitution.  The Senators conclude:  “Restoring the ability for States to protect their citizens while EPA assesses the safety of chemicals was one of the primary goals of our work to improve this bill and that has been accomplished under section 18(f)(2) of S. 697, as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. We believe this does, within the limits imposed by the Constitution.”

Although this preemption provision was narrowed in negotiations led by those Senators this past April, it is still being widely mischaracterized.   Read More »

Posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Links to essential reading on Senate and House TSCA reform legislation

By / Published: December 22, 2015

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[UPDATE 2/26/16:  Updated versions of (1) our detailed side-by-side comparison of Senate and House bills — now with bill section references — and (2) our 5-part series have been posted below.]

On December 17, 2015, the full Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697, the Lautenberg Act), which would amend the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The House of Representatives already passed its TSCA reform bill in June, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, H.R. 2576.

Next up in the New Year will be efforts to reconcile these two bills.  In anticipation of this, I am posting here updated analyses of the two bills that examine how and to what extent they would address key flaws in TSCA.  These analyses include:

  • brief and detailed side-by-sides of TSCA and the two bills,
  • a comparison of how the bills deal with the contentious issue of preemption of state authority,
  • a comparison of how well the bills meet the Administration’s principles for TSCA reform, and
  • an earlier blog post on the importance of understanding which chemicals are in use today.

All of these materials (including this post) are available at blogs.edf.org/health.

ANALYSES:

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Let’s savor this moment: Senate passes legislation representing real chemical safety reform

By / Published: December 17, 2015

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[Links to: the Senate-passed bill and a staff-prepared summary and list of changes made since committee markup.]

A huge step was taken tonight toward bringing this country’s chemical safety law into the 21st century:  The Senate (at last!) brought the Lautenberg Act to the floor by unanimous consent and passed it without objection by a voice vote.  While this outcome was not surprising, given that 60 Senators had already co-sponsored the legislation, it took a long time to get here and tonight’s vote is an historic moment that merits reflection.

I’ve been working for better chemical safety policies, including meaningful and comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for most of my career at EDF.  And for much of that time I found myself and my organization virtually always at odds with the chemical industry and often with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  When I started, I’m not sure I could ever have predicted either how long it would take – or how strongly bipartisan the support for TSCA reform would become.

The twists and turns along the way toward today’s Senate vote are too many to recount.  Suffice it to say we wouldn’t be here without the tremendous, sustained work of a group of Senators and their staff on both sides of the aisle who dedicated themselves to steadily moving this legislation forward while improving it in response to the concerns of literally hundreds of stakeholders.  The key has been the active engagement of and by an ever-enlarging circle of Senators and stakeholders, who saw the potential for a public health and environmental breakthrough and had the courage to work toward a compromise bill even in the most partisan of climates.

EDF’s benchmark for judging the strength of any legislative proposal has been the extent to which it addresses the many flaws in current law.  The Lautenberg Act, while clearly a compromise, still unequivocally meets that test – and has the level and diversity of support needed for the bill to actually become law.

Our press release, factsheets and side-by-side comparison of the Lautenberg Act to current TSCA summarize why we believe it represents the meaningful, comprehensive reform for which we’ve been working for so long and that American families deserve.

Of course, the work to get TSCA reform is not done.  The task of reconciling the comprehensive Senate bill with the more skeletal TSCA Modernization Act that breezed through the House in the summer now begins.  EDF strongly believes this should not be an exercise in merely splitting the differences.  Rather, we will be relentless in working to ensure that any bill signed into law meets key health protection objectives and delivers real reform.

Our top-ten list of objectives is as follows:

  1. Primary focus on chemicals that EPA, not industry, deems to be of highest priority
  2. Affirmative safety finding before a new chemical can enter the market
  3. No preemption of state authority triggered by EPA actions on new chemicals
  4. Dedicated user fees to defray costs of all EPA chemical reviews, not just those industry selects
  5. Full exclusion of cost considerations from all EPA determinations relating to unreasonable risk
  6. Elimination of TSCA’s Catch-22 requiring EPA to first show evidence of risk to require testing
  7. Deadlines for compliance with, and elimination of a cost-benefit balancing requirement from, EPA chemical regulations
  8. Authority for EPA to act if another agency to which a risk is referred fails to take timely action
  9. EPA review of confidential business information (CBI) claims, both past and future, and mandatory access to CBI by states
  10. No allowance for chemical identity in health and safety information to be claimed CBI

But it’s worth savoring the present moment, brought to all of us by a rare amalgam of political risk-taking and courage, willingness to seek common ground and compromise, dedication to one’s key principles while acknowledging the legitimacy of others’, and countless days, weeks and months of plain old hard work.

 

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged | Read 5 Responses

Advancing the ball while minding the gaps: EDF’s comments on EPA’s risk scoping documents for flame retardant chemicals

By Lindsay McCormick / Published: December 1, 2015

Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.

Until June 2014, EPA had not completed a chemical risk assessment under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority in 28 years.  Since then, EPA seems to have been somewhat picking up the pace: Over the past year and a half EPA has completed four additional risk assessments through the TSCA Work Plan Chemical Program, which is designed to assess the risks of priority chemicals currently on the market.

Recently, EPA initiated its assessment process for the next set of Work Plan chemicals, including three “clusters” of flame retardant chemicals.  We fully support EPA’s current efforts to assess the risks of these flame retardants – with the end goal of managing identified risks – and have provided quite extensive comments on EPA’s initial scoping documents.  In this post, I’ll highlight some of our comments and recommendations; see the links at the end to access the comments themselves.   Read More »

Posted in Food, Health policy, Health science / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed