Evaluating adverse effects of environmental agents in food: a brief critique of the US FDA's criteria.

Autor: Vandenberg LN; Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, 240G Goessmann, 686 N. Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA. lvandenberg@schoolph.umass.edu., Zoeller RT; Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.; Visiting Professor, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden., Prins GS; Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA., Trasande L; Departments of Pediatrics, Environmental Medicine, and Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Environmental health : a global access science source [Environ Health] 2023 Apr 21; Vol. 22 (1), pp. 38. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Apr 21.
DOI: 10.1186/s12940-023-00971-2
Abstrakt: 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.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje