iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael F. Jacobson

GET UPDATES FROM Michael F. Jacobson
 

FDA Is Not Protecting Consumers From Unsafe Food Additives

Posted: 07/11/2012 6:40 pm

It was in 1970, the year after Richard Nixon became president, that I came to Washington to be a new Nader's Raider. On my first day at work, Ralph Nader asked me to research and write a book about food additives. I had no idea what food additives were, let alone how to write a book, but I dove in.

It didn't take me long to see why some people considered the three letters F-D-A to stand not only for Food and Drug Administration, but also for Foot Dragging Artists. For the next four decades I've seen countless examples of failure to act, which have resulted in countless illnesses and deaths.

One glaring example of FDA's plodding pace concerned sulfites, which had long been used as preservatives in wine, raisins, and other foods and were thought to be safe. In 1982 the FDA proposed that sulfites formally be declared "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, a legal category of substances added to food, even though several years before California researchers found that sulfites could trigger asthma attacks. The problem arose because restaurants had begun soaking iceberg lettuce and peeled, raw potatoes in a sulfite solution. The sulfites prevented browning but resulted in high levels in the foods.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) publicized the sulfite problem and then, even in those pre-Internet days, heard from many people who suffered asthma attacks after eating a restaurant salad or drinking a glass of wine. Then we heard from more than a dozen people whose family members died after eating sulfite-laced foods. That made me realize that sulfites had probably caused hundreds or thousands of deaths.

With people dying, CSPI petitioned FDA to ban sulfites, but the agency did nothing. 60 Minutes ran, and then re-ran, a story, but still the FDA did nothing. It took a 1985 congressional hearing led by Rep. John Dingell to move the FDA. The parents of a young girl told the committee how she died minutes after eating a salad with sulfite-treated ingredients. FDA commissioner Frank Young then acknowledged that the agency published its GRAS proposal without updating its literature review. But it took five years, and who knows how many unnecessary deaths, before the FDA finally banned sulfites from fresh vegetables and limited the amounts permitted in other foods.

Numerous more recent examples demonstrate that the FDA still needs a major transfusion of spine stiffener to take on the food industry and protect consumers:

  • Until 1990, artificial trans fat, which forms when partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is manufactured, was generally thought to be innocuous. But then researchers did a study that showed that trans fat promoted heart disease by raising "bad" LDL cholesterol. In 1993 CSPI called on the FDA to require trans fat to be listed on the new Nutrition Facts labels. It took the FDA 13 years to do that. Meanwhile, new research showed that trans fat was the single most harmful fat in our diet.


    Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, estimated that trans fat was causing tens of thousands of fatal heart attacks annually. So in 2004, CSPI petitioned the FDA to ban partially hydrogenated oil, which is still officially GRAS. Eight years later, the FDA still has not done so, and some foods -- like Marie Callender's Lattice Apple Pie, Pillsbury Grands! Buttermilk Biscuits, Pop Secret popcorn, and White Castle Chocolate Frosted Donuts -- still contain copious amounts of the deadly fat. (Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, and Iceland have all essentially banned the use of partially hydrogenated oil.)

  • In the 1990s, FDA scientists developed new analytical methods that found worrisome amounts of the carcinogen benzidine in Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 food dyes. The FDA's response to its own discovery of a carcinogen in the second and third most-widely-used dyes? It hasn't done any tests since, let alone warn the public, ban the dyes, or restrict benzidine to safe levels. The FDA also is ignoring the fact that synthetic dyes can trigger hyperactivity and other behavior problems in susceptible children. In contrast, the European Union passed a law requiring warning labels on the few remaining foods that still contain some of the most questionable dyes.
  • The most harmful ingredient in our diet is, surprisingly, salt. Salt and other sodium-containing additives have been known for more than half a century to boost blood pressure and the risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke. In 1979, FDA's own advisory committee said that salt should no longer be considered GRAS, but the FDA has done almost nothing, and Americans' consumption of sodium actually has increased. In 2004 Steve Havas, then of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Claude Lenfant, then director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and another NHLBI employee estimated that cutting sodium consumption in half would save 150,000 lives a year. In 2010 the authoritative Institute of Medicine concluded that for more than 40 years industry had ignored calls to reduce sodium levels and that the FDA should set gradually-declining limits. The FDA has been studying the matter for the past two years while foods are still awash with salt -- and people are dying unnecessarily due to high blood pressure.
  • Far less harmful than salt, but a cause of great misery, is mycoprotein, the euphemism for the processed mold used to make Quorn-brand meat substitutes. However, Quorn products can cause horrible gastrointestinal problems (including vomiting so severe that blood vessels in the throat and eyes burst), hives, and life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. Such ingredients obviously do not have a "reasonable certainty of no harm," the FDA's safety standard, and do not belong in the food supply. The FDA has ignored CSPI's call for a ban of this dangerous ingredient, while the complaints (now more than 1,800) pile up.
  • Last March the FDA actually defended the presence of a cancer-causing contaminant (4-methylimidazole) in the caramel coloring used in Coke, Pepsi, and other soft drinks. In stark contrast, the state of California adopted a regulation requiring colas to sport a cancer-warning notice unless their levels of 4-MI were under 30 micrograms (most brands had about five times as much). After failing to fend off the requirement, companies quickly began marketing colas made with less-contaminated caramel colorings. But only in California.

The bottom line is that FDA officials just don't act as if they are the protectors of health that the public expects them to be. Instead, time and time again, they have shoved problems under the carpet, perhaps hoping the problems will be forgotten or solved through voluntary action.

The FDA appears to suffer from two problems. First, its own staff requires virtually absolute proof -- as in dead bodies with toe tags identifying the chemical cause of death -- that a substance is deadly before it dares reverse a previous approval. Second, agency officials fear that companies would run to their friends in Congress to stop the agency from acting. And with the current pro-business House of Representatives, that is not an idle concern. But whatever the underlying cause, the public expects -- and deserves -- greater protection from the agency that was established to keep harmful substances out of their daily diet.

For more by Michael F. Jacobson, click here.

For more health news, click here.

 

Follow Michael F. Jacobson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSPI

FOLLOW HEALTHY LIVING
 
 
  • Comments
  • 93
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
amiblueyoubet
02:16 AM on 07/16/2012
Salt, in proper moderation and unless counter-indicated, is not unhealthy.

The FDA should only be banning substances that are inherently and universally dangerous, and instead forcing disclosure of other substancs and ensuring accuracy of reporting.

You have no right to tell people they can't eat a lot of salt, but telling them "this item has 850mg of sodium" is certainly reasonable.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael F. Jacobson
11:11 AM on 07/20/2012
Yes, salt in moderation is not unhealthy---but the vast majority of Americans is consuming far, far more than moderate amounts. Sodium is listed on labels of packaged foods, but not restaurant foods. Considering that health officials have urged industry for 40 years to reduce sodium levels, and companies haven't, it's time for the FDA to help companies reduce levels by setting limits.
03:32 PM on 07/15/2012
THE FDA's process seems to be this: If in any way possible approve anything the industry wants. If people start dying, and people start noticing that people are dying, then deal with that later...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bgraceg
03:13 PM on 07/15/2012
In this country the ''official'' stance on food additives, pesticides, GMO etc, is ''innocent until proven guilty'', unlike in the rest of the developed world where it is the reverse.

I think the average person assumes there is some reputable watchdog agency or good safety standards for food and drink, when it's really the wild west and you're on your own to educate and protect yourself from harm.

And good luck even finding the information.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael F. Jacobson
11:12 AM on 07/20/2012
The salt situation actually is worse than "innocent until proven guilty." The FDA agrees that Americans are consuming too much salt, but it has failed to implement effective ways to reduce levels in packaged and restaurant foods.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
servicemasterwv
04:45 AM on 07/14/2012
this is news anyone with common sense know this and knows it has been this way for years anything the goverment does and had done in the last 35 years of importance is shoved under the carpet
04:09 AM on 07/14/2012
This article shows the very reason that the food industry is being over ran by Genetically Modified foods. FDA does nothing about it. And when I say nothing I mean nothing. They haven't even tested the foods to see if they are safe. Instead they take the industries word for it. It probably doesn't help that the FDA is full of former employees from Monsanto. Which is one of the largest supplier of Genetically Modified foods. Come on FDA require labeling for GMA's and let the public decide to accept them or not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
soli
06:24 AM on 07/14/2012
To skyp:

Get a life and an education.

If you want to use it, I believe the word is "overrun".
Even at that, foods (Genetically-Modified, or otherwise) don't overrun anything.
They are usually inanimate products that can't move.

The FDA has tested thousands of foods.
In genaral, the US public does not read the labels on food packages.
What good would your desired warnings do?

By-the-way - Your spelling and punctuation need some work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bgraceg
03:24 PM on 07/15/2012
Are you serious!?

You're a grammar/spelling critic and you say this ''don't overrun anything," and spell general ''general'' ?

And by the way -- the whole process of food testing, protecting the public, etc, has been politicized. You will not be able to READ on the label what pesticide residues are on /in the product! You won't even be able to find out which products are GMO because of political pressures!
10:31 PM on 07/13/2012
Big Business has worked for decades to make sure they "own" Congress and the White House, using campaign dollars and outright threats to get what they want.

It will take nothing short of a strong boycott of suspect products in order to make changes. And given that the vast majority of America is now nothing more than internet addicted, apathetic, "I'm privileged" cattle, there is no chance any boycott will work.

America only has maybe one or two decades left before it collapses in on itself and is picked apart by other countries. Our Congress and White House are seeing that this happens...

Sad, but true.
photo
RJ9255
Bless the Beasts & the Children
04:46 AM on 07/14/2012
Congress maybe, but not necessarily the White House, Pstan. It's Congress who's benefiting from having their pockets lined by Corp America/Big Business. Your comment has merit, but let's point the fingers to the appropriate offenders here.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael F. Jacobson
12:13 PM on 07/15/2012
Money in politics is nothing new. What is new is the scale and the secrecy. That's why some people argue that the America's biggest need is public funding of elections and public disclosure of campaign contributors.
08:48 PM on 07/13/2012
salt is not bad for you especially if you have adequate levels of potassium
04:04 AM on 07/14/2012
Keep telling yourself that.
02:17 AM on 07/16/2012
She will - she is right.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael F. Jacobson
12:15 PM on 07/15/2012
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans is consuming too much salt and not enough potassium. What with packaged and restaurant foods brimming with sodium, our diets won't change until companies reduce sodium to safe levels...and that's not going to happen until the FDA sets legal limits. Individual companies fear lowering sodium because their competitors might not. That's why regulation is so important--it provides a level playing field for all companies.
02:34 PM on 07/17/2012
If you eat bananas , potatos ,kiwi and several other foods you get enogugh potassium. Do we really need more bureaucrats monitoring how much potassium is in food ? We have enough bureaucrats now and food labels tell you the grams of protein , fiber salt and so forth now.
08:19 PM on 07/13/2012
People that talk this openly about this corrupt agency are placing themselves in grave situation. There is no great protection for whistle blowers. Tons of money changes hands to keep people quiet and stop lose cannons. Inside information in the FDA leaked to the public is most often the end of their career.
I worked in early PCB research in the 60's and had the same experience. Companies continued to sell solvents laced with this chemical for years after they knew it was a huge hazzard to health. People are told to sign non disclosure agreements not just to protect secret formulas but also to scare and put fear in employees that might let the public know about findings. It happens every day. You eat at your own risk.
07:24 PM on 07/13/2012
Between the major food processors, growers and big pharma, the general public doesn't have a chance in haiti against adulterated food chemicals.
Just be a buyer beware consumer and try to do the best you can..Oh BTW those ingredient labels mean very little. It's an out-dated computer program developed by ....yep you guessed it....FDA.
06:03 PM on 07/13/2012
Our government at work. Absolutely ridiculous. And with fast-tracking pharmaceuticals, how's that working out? Lots of deaths and problems, recalls and lawsuits. Nice going, FDA. Do they answer to no one?
photo
undrgrndgirl
what's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?
11:19 PM on 07/13/2012
fast tracking drugs came out of the race to cure/treat aids and "orphan" illnesses...it has, however, become a way for big pharma to use all of us as guinea pigs.
04:05 PM on 07/17/2012
No. It was NOT just for AIDS and orphan illnesses.  The people were clamoring for fast-tracking drugs because there were all KINDS of serious illnesses for which they couldn't get treatment under the original FDA regulations.  Drugs were getting out in Europe faster than they were here.  So, they embarked on this "fast-track" program.  Not working.
05:09 PM on 07/13/2012
Makes no sense to me what business it is of the House of Rep. or the Senate what rulings the FDA makes in protecting the public from harmful ingredients, etc. They aren't scientests, or doctors and really don't know the first thing about protecting the public from harmful ingredients in our food. All they care about are there own pet projects that will make them money or get them favors.
photo
RJ9255
Bless the Beasts & the Children
04:52 AM on 07/14/2012
With all due respect, Windy, I believe CONGRESS is the dept that oversees the FDA, that's why it should be their business in FDA rulings. However, I agree with you that since both are equally subservient to big business/Corp America, good luck in getting any real helpful regulating done by the FDA or any oversight of them by Congress.
05:07 PM on 07/13/2012
Here is something I have never understood. Why do doctors not do more to educate patients and parents about food choices. Even a little bit could make a difference. Tell them to make sure your kids get veggies and fruit each day and encourage them to shop differently. Little comments from a doctor can make some differences. I guess though if our schools are still calling ketsup a vegitable we have a huge uphill climb.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:46 PM on 07/13/2012
They try and people don't listen. God forbid someone give up their red meat or their Daily doughnut.
02:18 AM on 07/16/2012
So instead we need the nanny state. Gotcha.
photo
undrgrndgirl
what's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?
11:21 PM on 07/13/2012
because doctors are not taught nutrition...furthermore what little nutrition they do get (and the nutrition nutritionists learn) is taught by...guess who?...big agra! monsanto has had a lot of input on "nutrition" textbooks in the last 10 or so years.
05:06 PM on 07/13/2012
The FDA doesn't surprise those in the know. I think they made money by siding with certain substitutes for Sucaryl saying it was cancerous. Then they admitted it wasn't years later. Who got paid off, hmmm?
04:25 PM on 07/13/2012
When did this become news? The FDA has been taking pay-offs from food manufacturing companies as long as drug companies. They have made money by sacrificing our health for a long time. They have filed false reports on food additives and drugs just for money. Well, I guess it's a new generations turn to die young.