{"id":11513,"date":"2023-03-15T09:59:11","date_gmt":"2023-03-15T14:59:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=11513"},"modified":"2023-04-09T20:05:54","modified_gmt":"2023-04-10T01:05:54","slug":"broken-gras-fdas-half-step-to-limit-bias-and-conflicts-of-interest-in-gras-determinations-may-backfire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2023\/03\/15\/broken-gras-fdas-half-step-to-limit-bias-and-conflicts-of-interest-in-gras-determinations-may-backfire\/","title":{"rendered":"Broken GRAS: FDA\u2019s half-step to limit bias and conflicts of interest in GRAS determinations may backfire"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tom Neltner<\/em><\/a>, Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, consultant<\/em><\/p>\n

What Happened?<\/strong> FDA finalized a long awaited guidance for industry<\/a> 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).<\/p>\n

Why It Matters: <\/strong>As written, FDA\u2019s Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel<\/a> guidance is excellent. If <\/em>food companies convene GRAS panels consistent with the guidance, the panels\u2019 evaluations will be more credible because they should have less of the pervasive bias and conflicts of interest<\/a> that plague the current system and all too often result in unsafe chemicals<\/a> being added to food. But that\u2019s a big if.<\/p>\n

Our Take: <\/strong>Unfortunately, we think the guidance is likely to backfire because of the limited scope — FDA explicitly makes GRAS panels optional \u2013 a choice the agency made when it finalized the GRAS rule<\/a> 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<\/a> our comments in their recommended best practices in the revised final guidance.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/a>, 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<\/a>, an ingredient in a Daily Harvest frozen meal<\/a>. Last November, using marketing materials we showed FDA<\/a> that the number of new chemicals bypassing its review likely outnumber those voluntarily submitted to the agency.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> by the U.S. Government Accountability Office calling for action.<\/p>\n

Next Steps: <\/strong>In his effort to reform FDA\u2019s dysfunctional food safety program, FDA Commissioner Califf<\/a> told a reporter that \u201cI want to throw in chemical safety as another really, really important area for the future \u2013 for humankind, really \u2013 and where science is evolving rapidly.\u201d[1]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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

[1]<\/a> FoodFix<\/a>, January 31, 2023 edition.<\/p>\n

Updated April 9, 2023 to add link for Broken GRAS series.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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: …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":69548,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114084,114063,69],"tags":[114038,91633,107239,5120,74345],"coauthors":[114044],"class_list":["post-11513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-broken-gras","category-conflict-of-interest","category-fda","tag-bias","tag-fda","tag-food-chemicals","tag-food-safety","tag-gras"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t