| 1. |
- Muncke, Jane, et al.
(författare)
-
A vision for safer food contact materials: Public health concerns as drivers for improved testing
- 2023
-
Ingår i: ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL. - 0160-4120 .- 1873-6750. ; 180
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Food contact materials (FCMs) and food contact articles are ubiquitous in today's globalized food system. Chemicals migrate from FCMs into foodstuffs, so called food contact chemicals (FCCs), but current regulatory requirements do not sufficiently protect public health from hazardous FCCs because only individual substances used to make FCMs are tested and mostly only for genotoxicity while endocrine disruption and other hazard properties are disregarded. Indeed, FCMs are a known source of a wide range of hazardous chemicals, and they likely contribute to highly prevalent non-communicable diseases. FCMs can also include non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), which often are unknown and therefore not subject to risk assessment. To address these important shortcomings, we outline how the safety of FCMs may be improved by (1) testing the overall migrate, including (unknown) NIAS, of finished food contact articles, and (2) expanding toxicological testing beyond genotoxicity to multiple endpoints associated with non-communicable diseases relevant to human health. Toidentify mechanistic endpoints for testing, we group chronic health outcomes associated with chemical exposure into Six Clusters of Disease (SCOD) and we propose that finished food contact articles should be tested for their impacts on these SCOD. Research should focus on developing robust, relevant, and sensitive in-vitro assays based on mechanistic information linked to the SCOD, e.g., through Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) or Key Characteristics of Toxicants. Implementing this vision will improve prevention of chronic diseases that are associated with hazardous chemical exposures, including from FCMs.
|
|
| 2. |
- Vandenberg, Laura N., et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating adverse effects of environmental agents in food : a brief critique of the US FDA's criteria
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Environmental Health. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1476-069X. ; 22:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) is charged with protecting the safety of food from both pathogens and chemicals used in food production and food packaging. To protect the public in a transparent manner, the FDA needs to have an operational definition of what it considers to be an "adverse effect" so that it can take action against harmful agents. The FDA has recently published two statements where, for the first time, it defines the characteristics of an adverse effect that it uses to interpret toxicity studies.OBJECTIVE: In this brief review, we examine two recent actions by the FDA, a proposed rule regarding a color additive used in vegetarian burgers and a decision not to recall fish with high levels of scombrotoxin. We evaluated the FDA's description of the criteria used to determine which outcomes should be considered adverse.OVERVIEW: We describe three reasons why the FDA's criteria for "adverse effects" is not public health protective. These include an unscientific requirement for a monotonic dose response, which conflates hazard assessment and dose response assessment while also ignoring evidence for non-linear and non-monotonic effects for many environmental agents; a requirement that the effect be observed in both sexes, which fails to acknowledge the many sex- and gender-specific effects on physiology, disease incidence and severity, and anatomy; and a requirement that the effects are irreversible, which does not acknowledge the role of exposure timing or appreciate transgenerational effects that have been demonstrated for environmental chemicals.CONCLUSIONS: The FDA's criteria for identifying adverse effects are inadequate because they are not science-based. Addressing this is important, because the acknowledgement of adverse effects is central to regulatory decisions and the protection of public health.
|
|
