EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Exposure and hazard

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

 

 

Black & white photo of a refinery, billowing smoke.

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 »

Posted in Adverse health effects, Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, Frontline communities, Health hazards, Health policy, Industry influence, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA, Vulnerable populations / Also 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 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 »

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

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.

Why It Matters

First, the statement is at odds with the available evidence: there is no record of FDA reviewing the safety of THP as a GRAS substance. The only interaction we are aware of was in 2013, when Sabinsa voluntarily asked FDA to review its GRAS determination for BioPerine to be used as a flavoring agent. A few months later, Sabinsa sent a letter asking FDA to stop reviewing the safety assessment (also known as a “cease to evaluate” request). After that, there does not appear to have been any interactions between Sabinsa and FDA regarding either of its products.

Second, the statement mistakenly claims that FDA approves GRAS substances when in fact the agency issues an opinion when a manufacturer requests a review by FDA. In its opinion letters, the agency makes clear that it is not an approval.

Third, a decade ago, we identified significant safety concerns with BioPerine, the only product that FDA has had an opportunity to review although, as previously noted, that review was halted when Sabinsa withdrew its request for review. As a result, FDA did not issue an opinion. In 2013, the authors, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council at the time, sent a letter to FDA listing many issues with the GRAS notice that Sabinsa had withdrawn, including:

  • Lack of toxicology testing for the extract, which is more than 95% piperine, the active ingredient.
  • Failure to correctly interpret toxicity data in the literature, which showed that piperine is toxic to the immune system and causes reproductive and developmental toxicity in animals and cell-based studies.
  • Dismissal of human studies showing that piperine affects the metabolism of other compounds including medications by increasing their bioavailability.

Piperine is “reported to enhance the bioavailability of drugs, nutrients, and herbal extracts,” and Cosmoperine is marketed as a “bioavailability enhancer.”

The presence of these substances in food could potentially increase the bioavailability of medications in ways that healthcare professionals prescribing the drug could not anticipate. As a result, the drug might have adverse health effects from the higher effective dose.

Our Take

It is clear that BioPerine and the related Cosmoperine are highly concentrated extracts from black pepper that have been neither adequately tested nor adequately evaluated to determine their uses are safe.

We have published multiple articles describing the problems with the GRAS process. Among the most egregious of FDA’s failures are:

  • Allowing companies to withdraw a GRAS notice where the company realizes that FDA may not give it a favorable review;
  • Not proactively making the concerns publicly available[2] about the safe use of the substance;
  • Not conducting any apparent post-market oversight when FDA has concerns about the safety of a chemical.

In our Broken GRAS series we show many examples of chemicals of dubious safety that stealthily entered the food supply without any warnings.

In January, FDA Commissioner Califf announced a “new and transformative vision for the FDA Human Food Programs” These are important steps, but a real measure is ensuring that GRAS substances where FDA had safety concerns are subjected to strong oversight to protect American’s health by restricting the use of harmful chemicals such as THP.

Next Steps

We have alerted FDA to the claims and asked the agency to quickly investigate this product and its uses to protect consumers–especially those who might be using one of the medications that are affected by THP. FDA responded that it “will take a closer look and make sure this information is routed as appropriate.” We will continue to press FDA to act expeditiously to get products like this one off the market until the agency can verify its safety.

[1] We don’t know the relationship between Prime Research Reports and Sabinsa and have not heard back on a request for information.

[2] The information may be available through a Freedom of Information Act but that does not mean it is publicly available since only the requester gets the information.

Posted in Adverse health effects, Bioavailability, Broken GRAS, FDA, Food, Food, GRAS, Health hazards, Industry influence, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation / Also 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

Faucet with liquid pouring out next to the word PFAS under a magnifying glass

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

EPA’s information on PFAS

Posted in Chemical exposure, Chemical regulation, Contamination, Cumulative impact, Cumulative risk assessment, Emerging testing methods, Food, Food packaging, Health hazards, Health science, PFAS, Public health, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, TSCA, Vulnerable populations / Also 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.

Posted in Adverse health effects, Dose response, FDA, Health hazards, Health policy, Health science, Public health, Regulation / Also tagged , | Authors: , / Comments are closed

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 / Also tagged , , , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed