How the 62-year old Delaney Clause continues to thwart science: Case study of the flavor substance ß-myrcene.

The Delaney Clause is a provision of the 1958 Food Additive Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 which stipulates that if a substance is found by the Food and Drug Administration to be carcinogenic in any species of animal or in humans, then it cannot be used as a food additive. This paper presents a case study of ß-myrcene, one of seven synthetic substances that was challenged under the Delaney Clause, ultimately resulting in revocation of its regulatory approval as a food additive despite a lack of safety concern. While it is listed as a synthetic flavor in 21 CFR 172.515, ß-myrcene is also a substance naturally occurring in a number of dietary plants. The exposure level to naturally-occurring ß-myrcene is orders of magnitude higher (estimated to be 16,500 times greater) than the exposure via ß-myrcene added to food as a flavoring substance. The National Toxicology Program conducted genotoxicity testing (negative), a 13-week range-finding study, and a two-year cancer bioassay in B6C3F1 mice and F344/N rats. An increase in liver tumors was seen in male mice and kidney tumors in male rats, ultimately resulting in ß-myrcene being classified by IARC as a Class 2B carcinogen and being listed on California Proposition 65; in contrast, ß-myrcene is not classified as a carcinogen by any other regulatory authority. The doses administered in the NTP bioassay were five-six orders of magnitude higher than human exposures, and the FDA concluded after a thorough evaluation that there was no safety concern associated with the use of ß-myrcene as a flavor substance at the current use level. The Delaney Clause, however, does not consider the exposure potential or the human health relevance of effects observed in animals. The lack of options available to the US FDA led to the 2018 decision to remove ß-myrcene from the list of approved food additives. This revocation has contributed to the ongoing erosion of trust in regulatory agencies (and industry), which has both economic implications for food manufacturers and consumers alike, and implications for consumer perception of safety of the US food supply. It is time for us to reconsider the rationale behind any legislation that relies on classification alone, and whether there is, in fact, a reason to still classify nongenotoxic carcinogens at all.

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Type 2 Diabetes and Factual Causation in Negligence.

In this article we consider whether sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) (factually) cause type 2 diabetes for the purposes of negligence. In so doing we demonstrate how factual causation is confounded by other contributing factors such as genetics, lack of physical activity and other diet behaviours (eg low-fibre and high-fat diets). That said, a plaintiff is not necessarily deprived of the opportunity to prove causation merely because there are multiple contributing factors to the harm. While difficult, it is possible for type 2 diabetes to be categorised as an "exceptional circumstance", in which it must be shown that SSBs "materially contributed" to or were a "necessary element" of, the development of type 2 diabetes.

Food as a source of exposure to nickel

According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), food is the main source of nickel intake by the general population. Based on the risk assessment, EFSA determined the tolerable daily intake of this element (TDI) from all sources at the level of 2.8 µg/kg body weight, which is for an adult 196 µg, while for a child 56 µg. The Benchmark Dose Lower Confidence Limit (BMDL10) associated with dermatitis at 1.1 µg/kg body weight was also determined as well as the Margin of Exposure (MOE). Nickel intake in the Member States varies and depends on consumption habits. CONTAM Panel of EFSA considered the unlikely possibility of developing cancers related to the intake of nickel with food. According to experts, other harmful effects on the human body are more often identified. An additional aspect requiring further investigations that will allow an actual estimation of exposure associated with intake of this element by various groups of population is the issue of nickel absorption in the human body. The review of the EFSA opinion on the request of the European Commission planned in the near future based on the collected data as part of the action of the Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/1111 on monitoring the presence of nickel in food will contribute to taking appropriate actions related to consumer protection, including the most vulnerable groups of population.

Food additive emulsifiers: a review of their role in foods, legislation and classifications, presence in food supply, dietary exposure, and safety assessment.

Food additive intakes have increased with the increase in "ultra-processed" food consumption. Food additive emulsifiers have received particular research attention in recent years due to preliminary evidence of adverse gastrointestinal and metabolic health effects. In this review, the use of emulsifiers as food additives is discussed, and the current estimations of exposure to, and safety of, emulsifiers are critically assessed. Food additive emulsifier research is complicated by heterogeneity in additives considered to be emulsifiers and labelling of them on foods globally. Major limitations exist in estimating food additive emulsifier exposure, relating predominantly to a lack of available food occurrence and concentration data. Development of brand-specific food additive emulsifier databases are crucial to accurately estimating emulsifier exposure. Current research on the health effects of food additive emulsifiers are limited to in vitro and murine studies and small, acute studies in humans, and future research should focus on controlled human trials of longer duration.

Significance of and Challenges in Regulating Endocrine Disruptors - How Regulators and Industry Can Conquer?

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) disrupt the standard operation of the endocrine systems, resulting in untoward effects. EDs have gained extensive consideration due to their severe adverse impacts on public and wildlife health. A variety of compounds from both natural and synthetic origin may cause endocrine disruptions. These may be found in industrial chemicals, persistent organic pollutants, and products of regular use including pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, implants, medical/surgical and dental devices, cosmetics, food products, other consumer goods, their packaging and processing materials. Apart from direct consumption or use, these chemicals may impact by entering our food chain or ecosystem. These chemicals act by mimicking the hormones or blocking their receptors or interfering in their normal production, absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion. The implementation of a regulatory framework on the complex multidisciplinary field of EDs brings enormous challenges, which pose barriers to the regulatory process. This study aims to focus on the key public and ecological health concerns presented by EDs, challenges faced by regulators to achieve successful regulatory proposition and the importance of collaboration endeavours to potentially conquer such challenges. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) or EDs can impact at low exposure levels, bringing about a broad range of health issues including disorders related to reproductive, fetal development, neurological, immunological, metabolic and cancer, etc. They may cause health effects across generations. The regulatory frameworks available across major regulators are tackling the identification of EDs and their mechanisms to provide necessary guidance on the safety and disposal of such substances. However, the challenges faced outweigh the regulatory mechanisms in place. The major challenges are related to structural ranges at times leading to no representative structures, active metabolites, substantiate quantum, delayed effects, epigenetic changes, widespread existence, concentration correlation for different biological species, availability of appropriate methods, exposure to a mixture of chemicals, complex endocrinology principles, unknown sources, routes and mechanisms, impacts at early stages of life, geographical movement of EDs, hazard-based vs. risk-based approaches. Regulators of healthcare and environmentalists needs to collaborate amongst them and with wider stakeholders including industry sponsors to find ways of dealing with such challenges and capitalize on the research-based knowledge grid available across institutions. Existence of EDs, their impact on living beings and mechanism of influence are like a tangled web, which induces difficulties in regulating them with conventional mindset. Conquering these challenges necessitates that regulators should join forces amongst themselves, with other institutions operating for environment, with industry sponsors and researchers to achieve success in public health safety.