1 / 27

Options for Food Substance without Regulatory Status

Options for Food Substance without Regulatory Status . Any substance that is intentionally added to food is a “food additive” that is subject to pre-market review and approval unless it is GRAS

herman
Télécharger la présentation

Options for Food Substance without Regulatory Status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Options for Food Substance without Regulatory Status • Any substance that is intentionally added to food is a “food additive” that is subject to pre-market review and approval unless it is GRAS • If substance is not listed as approved food additive at 21 CFR Part 172 or GRAS listed or affirmed at 21 CFR Parts 182, 184, and 186, then an appropriate regulatory status must be sought 4

  2. Options for Food Substance without Regulatory Status • Food Additive Petitions • FDA pre-market review and approval • Time and cost considerations • Codified in regulation • Only technical evidence of safety • Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) • No pre-market approval • Both technical evidence of safety and basis to conclude this technical evidence of safety is known and accepted 5

  3. GRAS Status • Three conditions for GRAS status: • General recognition among experts that substance is safe; • Experts must be qualified by scientific training and experience; and • Experts must have based their safety judgment either on scientific procedures or the fact that the substance was commonly used in foods prior to January 1, 1958. 6

  4. GRAS – Scientific Procedures • Same quality and quantity of evidence/safety data needed in food additive petition • “Key/Pivotal” safety data “ordinarily published” (e.g., in peer-reviewed scientific literature) • “General Recognition”/Consensus (e.g., use of GRAS Expert Panel) • Conflict of interest issue 7

  5. GRAS Notifications • FDA started the GRAS Notification program because the prior GRAS Affirmation process was “broken”! • Over 100 pending GRAS Affirmation Petitions • FDA had insufficient resources to do a complete review • Law does not require approval 8

  6. GRAS Notifications (con’t) • Submit GRAS Notifications/Notices to FDA • Positive response is not an “approval,” but simply a statement that FDA does not object to the marketing of the ingredient for the condition and uses specified • Majority include GRAS Panel • Voluntary program in place since 1997 proposal • As of May 2014, FDA completed 488 reviews out of 517 GRAS notices that have been submitted to FDA (rest either withdrawn or under review) 9

  7. GRAS Notifications (con’t) • Numbers alone indicate a successful program • 15-20 withdrawn notices frequently reflect FDA raising questions about GRAS status • So there is a considered review of notices 10

  8. Self-Determined GRAS • Manufacturers may develop “self-determined” GRAS opinions without consulting FDA • Once GRAS determination has been reached, there is no requirement that FDA approve the conclusion 11

  9. Self-Determined GRAS (con’t) • Practical demands may dictate whether one takes self-determined or notification approach • What’s really happening!? • Are there really thousands of substances being directly added to food based simply on “self-determined” GRAS? 12

  10. GRAS Under Attack • Feb. 2010: GAO report • Nov. 2013: Capstone Report from PEW Charitable Trust • Feb. 2014: Center for Food Safety (CFS) files Lawsuit to vacate FDA’s GRAS notification program • April 2014: National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) publishes “Generally Recognized as Secret: Chemicals Added to Food in the United States” 13

  11. GRAS Under Attack-GAO • GAO 2010 Report: • FDA’s oversight of GRAS food ingredients doesn’t ensure safety of new GRAS determinations • Critical of number of GRAS substances not reviewed by FDA (e.g., nanomaterialscan enter food supply as GRAS without FDA’s knowledge) 14

  12. GRAS Under Attack-GAO (con’t) • GAO recommends FDA • Finalize 1997 proposal* • Develop strategy to conduct reconsiderations • Monitor appropriateness of GRAS determinations (e.g., random audits) • Develop way to avoid conflicts of interest* • Collect information on self-GRAS positions • Ensure nanomaterials not reviewed or approved for use are safe and disclose if GRAS substance includes engineered nanomaterials* *FDA is addressing/has addressed 15

  13. GRAS Under Attack-GAO (con’t) • After GAO report, FDA reopened comment period on 1997 proposal in Dec. 2010 • Addresses GAO recommendation that FDA finalize proposal • Requests comments regarding the following GAO recommendations • Nanomaterials • Conflict of interest • Guidance • Comment period closed March 2011 16

  14. GRAS and Nanomaterials • June 2014 - FDA issued guidance that addresses use of GRAS approach for nanotech food substances • FDA’s current position regarding nanotech food substances • Questions the technical evidence of safety and the general recognition of that safety for nanotech food substances • Recommends premarket review and approval by FDA as opposed to GRAS approach

  15. GRAS Under Attack-PEW • In PEW’s 2013 Report, Fixing the Oversight of Chemicals Added to Our Food, PEW alleges that: • FDA does not have sufficient information to assess the safety of additives • FDA uses outdated science to evaluate the safety of these additives • FDA's delayed implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has impeded the agency's ability to identify food safety concerns 17

  16. GRAS Under Attack-PEW (con’t) • PEW says Congress should intervene • Suggests amendments to the Food Additives Amendments Act of 1958 to require FDA review and approval of the first use of a new substance with subsequent applications going through GRAS Notification process • Give FDA more legal and financial resources • Mandatory review-require manufacturers provide information to FDA • Conflict of interest restrictions • User fees • Are the PEW recommendations necessary or practical? 18

  17. GRAS Under Attack-CFS Lawsuit • CFS Lawsuit to Vacate FDA’s GRAS Notification Program • At issue, FDA’s failure to finalize 1997 proposal to establish GRAS notification program and operation of GRAS program under proposal • Asks FDA to reinstate GRAS Affirmation Petition Process • Didn’t work pre-1997; why would it work now? • What happens to GRAS Notices that FDA has responded to? 19

  18. GRAS Under Attack-CFS Lawsuit (con’t) • FDA filed motion to dismiss • FDA says it plans to finalize 1997 rulemaking no later than July 2016 • Took issue with statute of limitations and lack of final agency action • FDA and CFS are working on a settlement 20

  19. GRAS Under Attack-NRDC • NRDC’s 2014 “Generally Recognized as Secret” report claims that chemical additives should not be GRAS if identity, chemical composition, and safety determination are not made public • Recommendations:  • Congress get involved • Adopt recommendations in 2010 GAO, including: • limit conflicts of interests • FDA be informed of all GRAS determinations • Make public FDA concerns with all notices it reviews, even those that are withdrawn 21

  20. GRAS Under Attack-NRDC (con’t) • NRDC actively attacking GRAS Notice submissions by submitting letters to FDA • GRAS Notice 466 • PGPR for use as emulsifier in condiments, spreads, flavors, cheese powders and snacks • NRDC took issue with cumulative estimated daily intake (EDI) being above acceptable daily intake (ADI) and uses that were not considered • FDA issued “no questions” letter 22

  21. GRAS Under Attack-NRDC (con’t) • GRAS Notice 471 • Annatto seed extract, tocotrienols, as source of vitamin E • NRDC took issue with recommended exposure and hazard assessment research • FDA issued “no questions” letter • GRAS Notice 474 • BioPerine black pepper extract as flavoring • NRDC took issue with failure to address EFSA 2011 disagreement with JECFA safety evaluation-no expert consensus • Company withdrew notice before NRDC letter 23

  22. GRAS Under Attack-PHOs • On November 8, 2013, FDA announced it has tentatively determined that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) are not GRAS under any conditions of use in food (See 78 Fed. Reg. 67169) • PHOs will be considered food additives that require pre-market approval • Issue: PHOs primary dietary source of trans fats, which are linked to health risks such as coronary heart disease 24

  23. GRAS Under Attack-PHOs (con’t) • FDA has tentatively concluded that there is no longer scientific consensus to support the safety of PHOs in food • 21 CFR 170.38 gives FDA authority to publish notice when it determines a substance is not GRAS • Could be relevant to other substances of concern (e.g., sodium and caffeine) • Comment period closed March 8, 2014 25

  24. GRAS Under Attack-PHOs (con’t) • FDA position on PHOs is unique • In our view, strengthens integrity of the GRAS program and demonstrates that the GRAS program works • If scientific information materializes after GRAS conclusion reached conclusion should be reassessed and GRAS position reversed, where necessary, but here, some would argue that data challenging GRAS position is weak 26

  25. Conclusions • In our view, the current GRAS system works • No reports of food safety issues raised by substances that are marketed based on GRAS • GRAS both supports food safety and product innovation • Attention on GRAS is diverting resources from more important food safety issues 27

  26. Conclusions • FDA will likely finalize GRAS Notification program in the next couple of years • FDA will address concerns over conflict of interest in guidance • Anything further will require legislation 28

  27. Thank you Melvin S. Drozen Partner Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 +1 202.434.4222 drozen@khlaw.com Evangelia C. Pelonis Counsel Keller and Heckman LLP 1001 G Street NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20001 +1 202.434.4106 pelonis@khlaw.com 29

More Related