According to a new article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, financial conflicts of interest are ubiquitous when food company employees, paid consultants or professional experts conclude that chemicals are "generally recognized as safe" and can be added to food. The article was co-authored by researchers from The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The article examines decisions about "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS determinations, which according to standard agency practice require no input from or even notification to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The co-authors find that out of 451 GRAS determinations made between 1997 and 2012, 22 percent were made by an employee of an additive manufacturer. More than 13 percent were made by an employee of a consulting firm selected by an additive manufacturer, and more than 64 percent by an expert panel selected by a consulting firm of an additive manufacturer.
In addition, the article finds that of the 290 panels convened, at least one of 10 individuals was selected to serve on 225 (78 percent) of them. Only 65 (22 percent) panels did not include one of the 10 individuals most frequently selected.
The authors used criteria developed by the Institute of Medicine in 2009 to identify conflicts of interest.
In 1958, Congress created the GRAS exemption to the more formal food additive petition process, but this exception was intended to be available for common food ingredients such as oil and vinegar. Since then, companies have expanded the use of the GRAS loophole to include a wide variety of chemicals whose safety is far from "generally accepted." Over the past 10 years, the loophole has effectively swallowed the law—thousands of chemicals have been cleared via GRAS determinations rather than the food additive petition process Congress set up.
The co-authors consist of three food additive experts from Pew—Maricel Maffini, Heather Alger and Tom Neltner—two widely-recognized ethics experts—Lisa Bero of University of California at San Francisco (and coauthor of the 2009 Institute of Medicine report) and Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University—and a widely published expert on FDA law, James O’Reilly of the University of Cincinnati.
The co-authors call on the FDA to fulfill its responsibilities to the public under the law and minimize conflicts of interest in GRAS determinations. These recommendations mirror a 2010 report from the U.S. Governmental Accountability Office. Minimizing these conflicts is important because the food supply is so large and complicated that connecting a health problem back to a specific additive is often difficult, particularly when the illness takes time to develop.
Pew will present the article's findings at a "Potential Conflicts of Interest in GRAS Determinations" workshop on August 7, 2013 that will be webcast.
Pew is focused on conflicts of interest in the medical setting as well. Check out Pew’s prescription project as it supports implementation of the Physician Payments Sunshine provisions in health care reform law, which requires drug and medical device manufacturers to publicly report gifts and payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals.
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013, the Food Additives Project at The Pew Charitable Trusts hosted a multi-stakeholder workshop that discussed approaches to managing these conflicts of interest. The workshop was meant to explain the concerns that have been raised regarding the potential for COI in GRAS selfdeterminations, and identify and discuss approaches to resolving those concerns.More info
The peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology published a paper from The Pew Charitable Trusts' food additives project examining the data used to make safety recommendations for chemicals added to food sold in the United States. The analysis of three major sources of toxicology information found significant gaps in the data for chemicals that are added to food and food packaging.More info
"All of the notices U.S. regulators received to vouch for the safety of common food additives between 1997 and 2012 were submitted by people who had a vested interest in the outcome of those assessments, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine on Wednesday."More info
"Experts selected by the food industry have often been the ones approving the safety of food additives for the past 15 years, a new report claims."More info
"How safe are the additives that make your food tastier, thicker, more vitamin-filled or less likely to spoil? It depends on how much you trust the companies that make those additives. A study out today finds that the scientists who judge the safety work for the additive manufacturers or for consultants they've hired."More info
A recent article by Pew experts concludes that the science the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses to assess the safety of food additives has not kept pace with recent scientific developments, and the agency should review and retool its approach to making decisions about the safety of chemicals used in food and packaging in the United States.More info
"Amid growing public concern over the safety of additives in products ranging from caffeinated energy drinks to industrial chemicals in food containers and water bottles, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is under pressure to reexamine its rules, and there are signs it may do so."More info
The complexity of our food supply and the oversight of its safety raise fundamental questions about what we eat — some of which were answered for the first time in "Navigating the U.S. Food Additive Regulatory Program," an analysis undertaken by Pew and published in the peer-reviewed journal, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. The following "frequently asked questions" summarize the findings and conclusions of this article.More info
From oil in Gatorade to the amount of caffeine and other stimulants in energy drinks and the so-called "pink slime" found in beef, previously unnoticed ingredients are coming under scrutiny as health-conscious consumers demand more information about what they eat and drink, and sometimes go public via social networking and the Internet.More info
More than 70 stakeholders examined how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures that people are exposed to safe levels of chemicals in food.The proceedings, published in the January 2013 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, lay out participants’ perspectives for enhancing the FDA’s methods.More info
Sarah Kavanagh and her little brother were looking forward to the bottles of Gatorade they had put in the refrigerator after playing outdoors one hot, humid afternoon last month in Hattiesburg, Miss. But before she took a sip, Sarah, a dedicated vegetarian, did what she often does and checked the label to make sure no animal products were in the drink. One ingredient, brominated vegetable oil, caught her eye.More info
"Grocery shoppers examining colorful packages bearing long lists of hard-to-pronounce ingredients might take comfort in the belief that those substances were deemed safe by the government. But that's not the case. Over the past 15 years, the vast majority of new ingredients added to U.S. food never received a safety determination from the government."More info