Aa
Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/04/14/399591292/why-the-fda-is-clueless-about-some-of-the-additives-in-our-food
"Companies have added thousands of ingredients to foods with little to no government oversight. That's thanks to a loophole in a decades-old law that allows them to deem an additive to be "generally recognized as safe" — or GRAS — without the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's blessing, or even its knowledge.
The loophole was originally intended to allow manufacturers of common ingredients like vinegar and table salt — when added to processed foods — to bypass the FDA's lengthy safety-review process. But over time, companies have found that it's far more efficient to take advantage of the exemption to get their products on shelves quickly. Some of these products contain additives that the FDA has found to pose dangers. And even ingredients the agency has agreed are GRAS are now drawing scrutiny from scientists and consumer groups who dispute their safety.
Critics of the system say the biggest concern, however, is that companies regularly introduce new additives without ever informing the FDA. That means people are consuming foods with added flavors, preservatives and other ingredients that are not reviewed at all by regulators for immediate dangers or long-term health effects.
The vast majority of food additives are safe. Some, however, have proven to cause severe allergic reactions or other long-term health effects. Scientists and advocates worry about the growing number of ingredients that the FDA doesn't know about and is not tracking.
Rather than going through the painstaking FDA-led review process to ensure that their new ingredients are safe, food companies can determine on their own that substances are "generally recognized as safe." They can then ask the FDA to review their evaluation — if they wish. Or they can take their ingredients straight to market, without ever informing the agency.
"FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know," said Steve Morris of the Government Accountability Office, which published a report in 2010 that found that "FDA's oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations."
And even when a company does go through the FDA review process, safety decisions have been criticized. For example, advocacy groups and lawsuits allege that mycoprotein, a type of fungus used in vegetarian products, has caused consumers to suffer a range of reactions, including nausea and anaphylactic shock. The complaints prompted the Center for Science in the Public Interest to urge the FDA in 2011 to revoke the ingredient's GRAS status.
For a company to determine that an ingredient is "generally recognized as safe," it must establish that the additive's safety is commonly understood by qualified scientific experts.
But some ingredients defy consensus, as consumers, scientific groups and sometimes even the FDA have pointed out. Even GRAS additives that have been used in food for decades are now coming under fire as their uses expand and scientific research emerges that casts doubt on their safety.
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.
But it's the ingredients the public doesn't know about that have critics of the GRAS system most worried.
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.
The GRAS loophole was born in 1958. Americans were growing concerned about the increased use of preservatives and other additives in food, so Congress passed — and President Dwight Eisenhower signed — the first law regulating ingredients added to food.
To restore confidence, the law set up a system requiring companies to submit new ingredients to an extensive FDA safety review before going to market.
"Congress had a clear understanding of what 'generally recognized as safe' means, but that's not the understanding that basically prevailed," said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group seeking reforms to the GRAS system. "There are plenty of ingredients that are receiving GRAS status, the safety of which are in dispute."
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.
"The food additive review process is a highway that is constantly gridlocked. If the food additive road doesn't go anywhere, what do I do?" asked Stuart Pape, a Washington, D.C., attorney who consults for companies that manufacture food additives. "GRAS is the other pathway."
The FDA has publicly acknowledged the GRAS system's shortcomings.
"We simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals," Michael Taylor, the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Foods, told The Washington Post last year.
Meanwhile, industry scientists and lawyers contend that safety concerns are overblown, and that major reforms designed to increase government oversight would cripple the resource-depleted FDA and stifle food innovation.
"It isn't the Wild West out there," said Stanley Tarka, a toxicologist and industry consultant. "We have the safest food supply in the world."
"Companies have added thousands of ingredients to foods with little to no government oversight. That's thanks to a loophole in a decades-old law that allows them to deem an additive to be "generally recognized as safe" — or GRAS — without the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's blessing, or even its knowledge.
The loophole was originally intended to allow manufacturers of common ingredients like vinegar and table salt — when added to processed foods — to bypass the FDA's lengthy safety-review process. But over time, companies have found that it's far more efficient to take advantage of the exemption to get their products on shelves quickly. Some of these products contain additives that the FDA has found to pose dangers. And even ingredients the agency has agreed are GRAS are now drawing scrutiny from scientists and consumer groups who dispute their safety.
Critics of the system say the biggest concern, however, is that companies regularly introduce new additives without ever informing the FDA. That means people are consuming foods with added flavors, preservatives and other ingredients that are not reviewed at all by regulators for immediate dangers or long-term health effects.
The vast majority of food additives are safe. Some, however, have proven to cause severe allergic reactions or other long-term health effects. Scientists and advocates worry about the growing number of ingredients that the FDA doesn't know about and is not tracking.
Rather than going through the painstaking FDA-led review process to ensure that their new ingredients are safe, food companies can determine on their own that substances are "generally recognized as safe." They can then ask the FDA to review their evaluation — if they wish. Or they can take their ingredients straight to market, without ever informing the agency.
"FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know," said Steve Morris of the Government Accountability Office, which published a report in 2010 that found that "FDA's oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations."
And even when a company does go through the FDA review process, safety decisions have been criticized. For example, advocacy groups and lawsuits allege that mycoprotein, a type of fungus used in vegetarian products, has caused consumers to suffer a range of reactions, including nausea and anaphylactic shock. The complaints prompted the Center for Science in the Public Interest to urge the FDA in 2011 to revoke the ingredient's GRAS status.
For a company to determine that an ingredient is "generally recognized as safe," it must establish that the additive's safety is commonly understood by qualified scientific experts.
But some ingredients defy consensus, as consumers, scientific groups and sometimes even the FDA have pointed out. Even GRAS additives that have been used in food for decades are now coming under fire as their uses expand and scientific research emerges that casts doubt on their safety.
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.
But it's the ingredients the public doesn't know about that have critics of the GRAS system most worried.
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.
The GRAS loophole was born in 1958. Americans were growing concerned about the increased use of preservatives and other additives in food, so Congress passed — and President Dwight Eisenhower signed — the first law regulating ingredients added to food.
To restore confidence, the law set up a system requiring companies to submit new ingredients to an extensive FDA safety review before going to market.
"Congress had a clear understanding of what 'generally recognized as safe' means, but that's not the understanding that basically prevailed," said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group seeking reforms to the GRAS system. "There are plenty of ingredients that are receiving GRAS status, the safety of which are in dispute."
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.
"The food additive review process is a highway that is constantly gridlocked. If the food additive road doesn't go anywhere, what do I do?" asked Stuart Pape, a Washington, D.C., attorney who consults for companies that manufacture food additives. "GRAS is the other pathway."
The FDA has publicly acknowledged the GRAS system's shortcomings.
"We simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals," Michael Taylor, the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Foods, told The Washington Post last year.
Meanwhile, industry scientists and lawyers contend that safety concerns are overblown, and that major reforms designed to increase government oversight would cripple the resource-depleted FDA and stifle food innovation.
"It isn't the Wild West out there," said Stanley Tarka, a toxicologist and industry consultant. "We have the safest food supply in the world."
This "loophole" is a great way for a government entity that was created to make sure our food sources are indeed safe, to neglect their duty and just pass it off.
Personally, I think we need more government agencies that don't do their jobs and still manage to get paid handsomely for it.
Personally, I think we need more government agencies that don't do their jobs and still manage to get paid handsomely for it.
Oh no... I guess I'm lucky; I never had an Easter chick so I didn't have to worry about eating it later.
I'm sure your mom was devastated at having eaten Peep Peep, unless it tasted really good, then it might not have made it so bad. LOL
I'm sure your mom was devastated at having eaten Peep Peep, unless it tasted really good, then it might not have made it so bad. LOL
My mom told a story of having her Easter chick for dinner at some point and not realizing she was eating Peep Peep until it was too late. :>0
He was only allowed the dang bottle for a certain amount of time, then it made his tummy ill... :-( And I bet your second son didn't butt you the rear and send you flying either ... When I was cleaning a calf yard, my feet should never have been higher than my butt... lol
When you live on a farm and grow livestock for food, you have to do what you have to do... I don't think pigs are any smarter; they're just cross-eyed, so you only "think" they're looking you in the eye... LOL My mother always did the chickens, then I had to pluck the feathers - every single one... Yuck!!
When you live on a farm and grow livestock for food, you have to do what you have to do... I don't think pigs are any smarter; they're just cross-eyed, so you only "think" they're looking you in the eye... LOL My mother always did the chickens, then I had to pluck the feathers - every single one... Yuck!!
Um, we've butchered chickens. The first time I thought I'd react emotionally but it was surprisingly easy. Pigs are different. They're smart and look you in the eye. I don't eat much beef, it sits in my stomach like a rock.
Now see Barb--- I'm worried about that cow's emotions. :))) He came to you as a tiny babe and thought of you at the least, his savior and maybe even his mama. And he just wanted the dang bottle and some attention. :>) My second son was like that.
LOL I understand that... I grew up on a farm and we raised livestock that was clearly for food and for sale as it was the income for our family - large herds/flocks that could not be pets, but they were all pastured/free range (50-60 yrs ago, we didn't use all the chemicals used now). I had to help with meat processing, but, thankfully, I never had to do the slaughtering... That was done before I got involved and I could pretend the meat I was cutting/wrapping hadn't come from any animal I'd ever seen before... lol
My husband and I raised some livestock for food, free range (no chickens), but we didn't process the meat ourselves.
Funny story, though - when we lived in IA and had land to use, I used to buy baby calves that were only 2-3 days old and had to be fed with a bottle until they could eat feed on their own. It was a lot of work, but it was fun and I made money at it. I got one calf that was pretty puny, but within a few days, he picked right up and fit in with the rest of the bunch I had, so when I went out to feed them, he'd nuzzle right up to me. At first, I thought it was so cute, then he started getting really pushy and didn't want to wean off the bottle. When I wouldn't let him have a bottle anymore, he started butting me in the rear every time I turned my back on him (ouch). One day I was in the calf yard scooping poo, when he was about 400 lbs, he came up behind me and really butted me hard in the lower back... I only weighed about 100 lbs at the time and he had horns, so I went flying... I hurt for weeks; we had him butchered at about 500 lbs and I didn't mind eating that meat... :-)
They aren't always sweet and cuddly... lol :-)
My husband and I raised some livestock for food, free range (no chickens), but we didn't process the meat ourselves.
Funny story, though - when we lived in IA and had land to use, I used to buy baby calves that were only 2-3 days old and had to be fed with a bottle until they could eat feed on their own. It was a lot of work, but it was fun and I made money at it. I got one calf that was pretty puny, but within a few days, he picked right up and fit in with the rest of the bunch I had, so when I went out to feed them, he'd nuzzle right up to me. At first, I thought it was so cute, then he started getting really pushy and didn't want to wean off the bottle. When I wouldn't let him have a bottle anymore, he started butting me in the rear every time I turned my back on him (ouch). One day I was in the calf yard scooping poo, when he was about 400 lbs, he came up behind me and really butted me hard in the lower back... I only weighed about 100 lbs at the time and he had horns, so I went flying... I hurt for weeks; we had him butchered at about 500 lbs and I didn't mind eating that meat... :-)
They aren't always sweet and cuddly... lol :-)
I am going to say though that if I had to butcher my own meat, I wouldn't eat it. I'd have a backyard full of pet chickens and cows. Somehow when it is in a package, I can forget how it got there. We eat a lot of beans and legumes at our house.
The grocery store we shop at has a stamp on the meat that says "grown and harvested in the U.S". I always think that doesn't necessarily make me feel more comfortable, because of the antibiotics and hormones being fed to the animals as they're being raised and the conditions of some of the packing plants.
"We have the safest food supply in the world."
So we are told. I was in Thailand where live and recently butchered chickens could be bought in open air markets while the US was pulling tainted chickens from markets because of our big agribusiness way of producing meat.
As for additives, well the best way to be sure of what you're eating is to grow your own, buy locally, avoid prepackaged food and eat freshly prepared food,ideally from your own kitchen..
So we are told. I was in Thailand where live and recently butchered chickens could be bought in open air markets while the US was pulling tainted chickens from markets because of our big agribusiness way of producing meat.
As for additives, well the best way to be sure of what you're eating is to grow your own, buy locally, avoid prepackaged food and eat freshly prepared food,ideally from your own kitchen..
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
