EDF Health

Selected tag(s): FDA

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 / Also 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 / Also 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 / Also tagged , , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response

Unleaded Juice: FDA’s challenge of continuous improvement and compliance assurance

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: October 2, 2022

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

This is the sixth in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and the implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program. 

A core tenet of FDA’s Closer to Zero program is the “Cycle of Continuous Improvement” represented by the image below on the program’s webpage. The four-stage, outer ring represents FDA’s process for revising its action levels for food contaminants. The inner, grey ring describes the agency’s on-going monitoring, research, and compliance program.


This approach makes sense, and we fully support it. However, the success of this approach relies on FDA addressing several significant structural weaknesses.

  • Future funding is not guaranteed: In March 2022, Congress appropriated $11 million in Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) funding for FDA’s maternal and infant health work—in part to support the agency’s efforts to reduce arsenic, lead, and cadmium in children’s foods. Last year’s request and appropriations were a significant increase over previous years, but that funding level is not guaranteed for future years.
  • Action levels are guidance—not legally binding requirements: FDA’s action levels for contaminants in food are established in guidance. The guidance introduction makes it clear that “The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, unless specifically incorporated into a contract.” It assumes that the food industry—from the largest multinational corporation to the smallest entrepreneur—will comply.
  • The agency has limited means to monitor compliance: FDA largely relies on physical inspections and market sampling, supplemented by voluntary reporting, to assure compliance with action levels. Inspections at high-risk facilities must occur every three years (but likely have been delayed due to the COVID pandemic). We understand that most facilities will see an inspector once every eight years. This is particularly problematic because FDA says it lacks the authority to require food companies to provide requested documents without the physical inspection, and the agency does not require ongoing testing and reporting by companies for action levels.
  • Action levels must be consistently strong enough to drive research and impact markets: FDA correctly points to its success in setting an action level for inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal as a model to lower contamination. Unfortunately, the model assumes the action level for a contaminant is set low enough to result in research investments and increased product and ingredient testing and to provide FDA with sufficient information to act on problems. This is not the case for lead in juice.
     
    We explore each of these weaknesses below.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Lead, Public health, Unleaded Juice / Also tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Unleaded Juice: FDA needs to start with public health—not market impact

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: September 22, 2022

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals 

This is the fifth in our Unleaded Juice blog series exploring how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, and cadmium in food and its implications for the agency’s Closer To Zero program. 

FDA’s approach to setting draft action levels for lead in juice is based on two ill-conceived presumptions:

  • Action levels should not impact more than 5% of the market. Unfortunately, FDA does not appear to consider market trends or whether the products were made using best practices shown to reduce contamination.
  • Action levels should help ensure 90% of young children have a dietary intake of lead that is below FDA’s Interim Reference Level, the maximum daily intake from food. Unfortunately, this effectively ignores the top 10% or 2.4 million of the most-exposed young children.[1]

To its credit, the agency has shown it is willing to go beyond the 5% impact for three types of juices (grape at 12%, pomegranate at 6%, and prune at 6%),[2] and it has proposed the most protective lead-in-juice standards in the world. However, for a heavy metal like lead where relatively short-term exposures can result in long-term harm to young children’s developing brains, the current approach has serious weaknesses.

We think the agency should evaluate alternatives that impact more than 5% of the market and protect more than 90% of children. And when FDA evaluates impacts, it should assess the socioeconomic benefits of the alternatives. For substances like lead (and arsenic), these societal benefits can be quantified using established methods. In a previous blog, we showed that reducing young children’s overall dietary intake of lead by just 6% would yield $1 billion a year in benefits. The agency should compare these benefits to the investments that industry would need to make to achieve these action levels using best practices.

Read More »

Posted in FDA, Food, Lead, Unleaded Juice / Also 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 / Also tagged , | Comments are closed