Ferré & Consulting Blog (English Version)

Safety decisions concerning one-third of the more than 10,000 substances that may be added to human food were made by food manufacturers and a trade association without review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to an analysis spearheaded by the Pew Health Group.

The report, published  in the peer-reviewed journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, illustrates potential problems with the U.S. food additive regulatory program.

“Congress established our food additive regulatory program more than 50 years ago, and it does not stand up well to scrutiny based on today’s standards of science and public transparency,” said Tom Neltner, Food Additives Project director in the Pew Health Group.

The research also found that the FDA developed an expedited process in the mid-1990′s that essentially eliminated the opportunity for public involvement in decision making prior to FDA’s safety determination. This shift doubled the rate of industry requests for FDA review. In contrast, standard operating procedure for other federal regulatory decisions regarding drug, workplace, and environmental safety requires public notice and an opportunity to comment.

“While the shift to a new regulatory process–one in which companies make safety decisions and ask FDA to confirm them–has sped up agency review, it has also bypassed the public,” Neltner said. “Subjecting safety decisions to comment from competitors, academic scientists, public interest groups, and the general public can result in stronger protections for consumers. In an age of growing demand for government transparency, there is virtually no meaningful opportunity for participation in decisions about large classes of substances added to the food supply.”

When Congress passed the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, it created a structure that has limited the FDA’s ability to effectively regulate substances added to food because the law:

Allows manufacturers to determine that the use of an additive is “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), and then use that substance without notifying the FDA. As a result, the agency is unaware of many substances that may be added to food and lacks the ability to ensure that safety decisions were properly made.

Does not require that manufacturers inform the FDA when health reports suggest new hazards associated with additives already used in food. Therefore, the agency has no access to unpublished reports and must expend limited resources sifting through published information to identify potential problems and set priorities.

In addition to the article examining the state of the food additive regulation, a piece in the same publication summarizes a workshop, co-sponsored by the Institute of Food Technologists and the journal Nature, examined how FDA evaluates the potential hazards posed by substances added to food. The two-day session, held in April 2011, brought together science and food policy experts from government, industry, academia, and public interest organizations. Issues discussed at the workshop and presented in the journal article include:

The need for clear procedures to develop validated toxicological tests and regularly revise guidance documents to reflect advances in science;

Opportunities to improve academic research to make it more usable for regulatory decision making and enhance coordination between federal agencies; and

Challenges to reassessing a chemical’s safety after it is on the market.

Both journal articles appear in the November issue of Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. They are the first in a series of the Pew Health Group’s assessments of the scientific evidence and FDA’s regulatory system, evaluating whether the agency ensures chemicals added to food are safe as required by law. Future articles will consider other aspects of the scientific analysis and the law, and will provide case studies of issues raised about the FDA’s food additives program. The Pew Health Group will develop policy recommendations to reduce unnecessary and hidden risks that are informed by their evaluation.

Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts

Food Safety food safety, regulations

USDA Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Under Secretary Kevin Concannon today announced the results of USDA’s Household Food Security in the United States, 2010 report that found that the percentage of very low food security declined from 5.7 percent of households in 2009 to 5.4 percent in 2010. The USDA study indicated that in 2010, 17.2 million households in America had difficulty providing enough food due to a lack of resources. The number of food insecure households in 2010 was relatively consistent with statistics released in 2008 and 2009.

“This report underscores the critical role that federal nutrition assistance programs play in helping struggling American families put food on the table until they can get back on their feet,” said Concannon. “Many families receive assistance not because they want to, but because they need it as a last resort to make ends meet. As the economy continues to recover and jobs are created, we hope to see the number of families in need of nutrition assistance shrink.”

The report released today indicates that 59 percent of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest nutrition assistance programs near the time of the survey.

In fiscal year 2010, these programs provided much needed food assistance to millions of individuals, children and families in need:

In an average month of fiscal year 2010 (October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provided benefits to 40.3 million people in the United States.

In fiscal year 2010, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) provided meals to an average of 31.6 million children each school day.

In fiscal year 2010, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) served an average 9.2 million participants per month.

Food insecurity rates were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes near or below the current federal poverty line ($22,350 for a family of four), households with children headed by single women or single men, and black and Hispanic households. Food insecurity was more common in large cities and rural areas than in suburban areas and other outlying areas around large cities.

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service administers 15 nutrition assistance programs including the Summer Food Service Program; SNAP; NSLP; WIC; and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Together these programs make up the federal nutrition safety net. USDA administers these programs in partnership with state and local agencies and works with faith and community-based organizations to ensure that nutrition assistance is available to those in need. Additional information about the programs can be found at www.fns.usda.gov.

Source: USDA

Food Safety food insecurity, USDA

An association representing European small and medium-sized businesses is calling on its members to consult on draft guidance for submitting applications to the EU for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings.

The guidance document provides potential applicants with practical information to help them prepare and submit applications on the “food improvement agents” to the European Commission’s DG SANCO for approval.

Dr Ludger Fischer is a spokesman for the UEAPME, an employer’s organisation representing the interests of European crafts, trades and SMEs at EU level.

He told: “It is indeed difficult to interpret EU regulations and directives in daily life. So guidance documents are very welcome, especially by SMEs.”

Fischer said the UEAPME has been very much involved in the preparation of some other guidelines and added: “The draft guideline will be corrected or adjusted according to the comments of UEAPME members and other stakeholders.”

So it is an opportunity for SMEs to get their views or requirements across.

The UEAPME has now written to its members stating: “Since this guidance is targeted at potential applicants we would appreciate if you provide us with your comments and feedback on this document by 19 August 2011 at the latest.”

Fischer added that guidance documents issued by the European Commission are much clearer, stick to practical application and “translate” legislative language into the language of those who have to follow the regulations.

For some businesses such applications can be crucial as Ludger said especially in the baking sector, for example, “some of the enzymes and additives are essential for the production of high quality products”.

An association representing European small and medium-sized businesses is calling on its members to consult on draft guidance for submitting applications to the EU for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings.

The guidance document provides potential applicants with practical information to help them prepare and submit applications on the “food improvement agents” to the European Commission’s DG SANCO for approval.

Dr Ludger Fischer is a spokesman for the UEAPME, an employer’s organisation representing the interests of European crafts, trades and SMEs at EU level.

He told FoodNavigator.com: “It is indeed difficult to interpret EU regulations and directives in daily life. So guidance documents are very welcome, especially by SMEs.”

Fischer said the UEAPME has been very much involved in the preparation of some other guidelines and added: “The draft guideline will be corrected or adjusted according to the comments of UEAPME members and other stakeholders.”

So it is an opportunity for SMEs to get their views or requirements across.

The UEAPME has now written to its members stating: “Since this guidance is targeted at potential applicants we would appreciate if you provide us with your comments and feedback on this document by 19 August 2011 at the latest.”

Fischer added that guidance documents issued by the European Commission are much clearer, stick to practical application and “translate” legislative language into the language of those who have to follow the regulations.

For some businesses such applications can be crucial as Ludger said especially in the baking sector, for example, “some of the enzymes and additives are essential for the production of high quality products”.

Source: Food Navigator

Food Safety, Ingredients additives, flavours, Food enzymes

The European Food Safety Authority has said it has no safety concerns about the use of two substances in food contact materials following requests from the UK.

Polymer antioxidant

The agency’s CEF panel delivered its positive scientific opinion on phosphorous acid, mixed 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylpropyl)phenyl and 4-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)phenyl trimesters.

The experts said there was no safety concern for the public if the migration of the substance – expressed as the sum of phosphite and phosphate form of the substance and the hydrolysis product 4-t-amylphenol) – does not exceed 5 mg/kg food.

The migration of the hydrolysis product 2,4-di-t-amylphenol should not exceed 0.05 mg/kg food, it added.

The substance, with CAS number 939402-02-5, European Commission reference number 74050 and the FCM substance No. 974, is for use as an antioxidant in all polymers at a maximum content of 1500 mg/kg polymer for contact with all food types at any time/temperature condition.

The referral to the Parma-based body was made by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) on behalf of the applicant Chemtura Corporation, USA.

To read the full opinion click here

Co-monomer fro EVOH and PVOH copolymers

The same panel also delivered a positive assessment on the monomer 3,4-diacetoxy-1-butene under specific conditions.

The EFSA scientists concluded that there was no safety concern for the consumer if the migration of the substance does not exceed 0.05 mg/kg food – including the hydrolysis product 3,4-dihydroxy-1-butene – and is only used as a comonomer for EVOH and PVOH copolymers.

The substance, with CAS No. 18085-02-4, REF. No. 15180 and the FCM substance No. 862, is designated for use as a comonomer in small percentages for the production of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (EVOH) and polyvinyl alcohol copolymer (PVOH).

Stipulations were made depending on whether the substance was to be used as an inner layer or if in direct contact with food.

FCMs containing the copolymer as an inner layer are intended to be used with all types of foodstuffs under conditions of long term storage at room temperature whereas the copolymer layer in direct contact with food is intended for dry and fatty foods only, said the CEF panel.

Overall migration limit from EVOH or PVOH copolymers in direct contact with aqueous foods may be exceeded

The dossier was submitted on behalf of Nippon Gohsei, Japan, by the UK FSA

To read the full opinion click here

Source: Food Production Daily

Food Safety, packaging EFSA, food contact materials

There is no known link between food colouring and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), however wider safety issues remain, says one expert.

A more comprehensive scientific answer to the effects of food colouring additives on children is needed, according to Dr Andrea Chronis-Tuscano, an associate professor of psychology and director of the University of Maryland ADHD Program. She said that debate over whether artificial food colours contribute to childhood ADHD “has itself been coloured for decades by weak science and strong emotional beliefs.”

She added that as one of the scientists testifying before a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on the issue last year, she had no qualms “in debunking the alleged connection between these food additives and ADHD.”

Colours, kids and controversy

Controversy over the safety of artificial food colours has been raging for years, but reached a new frenzy in 2007 following the publication of a highly controversial study conducted by the University of Southampton in the UK suggesting a link between six food dyes – the ‘Southampton Six’ – and hyperactivity in children.

While EFSA concluded that the results could not be used as a basis for altering the acceptable daily intakes of the colours in question, the European Parliament baffled many observers by insisting that products featuring the colours should nevertheless include warning labels noting that they “may have an effect on activity and attention in children”.

However, the US FDA Food Advisory Committee recently voted against recommending European-style warning labels on products containing artificial food colours in the US.

Scientific basis

Chronis-Tuscano said that the testimony from other experts on the panel on the recent FDA panel ‘convinces’ her that more conclusive research on the overall safety of artificial colours is needed.

She said that all parents “should think twice” before exposing children to artificial colours, but added that parents of children with ADHD “should not be misled into thinking that artificial dyes are the cause of the condition.”

“As a University of Maryland clinical psychologist specializing in the assessment and treatment of this disorder, I told the FDA panel unequivocally that no convincing evidence supports the idea that food colour additives cause ADHD or that strict elimination diets effectively treat the condition. I stand by this assessment,” she said.

However, Chronis-Tuscano added that she has concerns regarding the overall safety of artificial colours, noting that the FDA committee experts “pointed out that appropriate toxicology studies have not been conducted to determine the effects of these additives on developing brains at different ages.”

“Given the lack of hard evidence, I am not convinced that food colouring additives are dangerous, but I am also not convinced that they are not. It is certainly possible that some small subset of children have a unique sensitivity to these substances.”

“The issue shouldn’t end here. We need better answers about the effects of these additives,” she warned.

Source: Confectionery News

Food Safety ADHD, food colouring

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has denied a suggestion by two MEPs that it may have lost data relating to a previous safety evaluation of the high intensity sweetener aspartame (E951) and that it failed to examine it properly in the first place.

MEPs Corinne Lepage and Antonyia Parvanova, from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats welcomed the news that a full evaluation of aspartame’s safety profile would be completed before July 2012.

Mystery dossier

But calling for further public information on uncertainties concerning the health implications of aspartame intake to be made available – particularly for pregnant women – they said in a joint statement: “We should denounce how careless the EFSA and the Commission have been until handling this case until now.

“Recent exchanges of letter between NGOs [non-governmental organisations] and the EFSA seem to indicate that the EFSA never took the time to look at the original evaluation, and that data has even been lost.”

The specific exchange relates to a request from French NGO Réseau Environnement Santé (RES) to EFSA, asking the authority to communicate toxicology studies upon which the Admissible Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame in Europe is based.

Hugh Kenigswald replied on May 24 that EFSA did not have the relevant dossier, and contacts with his colleagues at the European Commission suggested that they no longer possessed it.

In a public hearing on aspartame in the European Parliament on March 16, the MEPs asked EFSA (RES has also) to release toxicology data on the Admissible Daily Intake (ADI), and to recalculate levels based on manufacturer-independent studies of aspartame.

Presented with the data loss claim, an EFSA spokeswoman said: “EFSA has not lost any data…[and] is undertaking a risk assessment of the safety of this food additive based on all available scientific and technical data.”

She added that, had any evidence been found to date that would have led EFSA to reconsider the safety of aspartame or its ADI, then it would have done so.

This included two recent papers from 2010 that have in part prompted the European Commission to ask EFSA for a review, a carcinogenicity study in mice exposed to aspartame, and an epidemiological study that linked drinks sweetened with aspartame to premature child birth.

Extensive aspartame work

Mentioning EFSA’s recent call for data on E951, with a deadline for submissions of September 30 2011, the spokeswoman said that the authorisation granted to aspartame in 1994 for food additive use was based on a 1984 toxicological assessment by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) which published a further opinion in 2002.

“Furthermore, it is not as if EFSA has done no work on aspartame. It has carried out a substantial body of work on the substance over the years,” the spokeswoman added.

“Its experts issued two scientific opinions on aspartame in 2009, which took into consideration a study on the carcinogenicity of rats carried out by the European Ramazzini Foundation and all other available evidence.

“They concluded there was no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and no reason to revise the previously established ADI. An earlier opinion of 2006, following the first study on aspartame by the ERF, had also confirmed the safety of the sweetener.”

Source: Confectionery News

Food Safety aspartame, E951, EFSA

The European Food Safety Authority has today published a guidance document for the risk assessment of engineered nanomaterial (ENM) applications in food and feed. The guidance is the work of the Authority’s Scientific Committee and is the first of its kind to give practical guidance for addressing potential risks arising from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. The guidance covers risk assessments for food and feed applications including food additives, enzymes, flavourings, food contact materials, novel foods, feed additives and pesticides.

The EFSA guidance, prepared in response to a request from the European Commission, sets out the considerations for risk assessment of ENM that may arise from their specific characteristics and properties. Importantly, the ENM guidance complements existing guidance documents for substances and products submitted for risk assessment in view of their possible authorisation in food and feed. It stipulates the additional data needed for the physical and chemical characterisation of ENM in comparison with conventional applications and outlines different toxicity testing approaches to be followed by applicants.

Commenting on the publication of the EFSA guidance, Professor Vittorio Silano, Chair of EFSA’s Scientific Committee explained, “A thorough characterisation of the engineered nanomaterials followed by adequate toxicity testing is essential for the risk assessment of these applications. Yet we recognise uncertainties related to the suitability of certain existing test methodologies and the availability of data for ENM applications in food and feed. The guidance makes recommendations about how risk assessments should reflect these uncertainties for food and feed applications.”

To assist with the practical use of the guidance, six scenarios are presented which outline different toxicity testing approaches. For each scenario, the guidance indicates the type of testing required.

EFSA conducted a public consultation on its preparatory work, acknowledging the importance of developing risk assessment methodologies in this field to support innovation whilst ensuring the safety of food and feed. In total 256 comments were received from 36 organisations spanning from academia, NGOs, industry to Member State and international authorities. All of these contributions were considered and incorporated into the guidance document where appropriate.

Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials is under fast development and consequently, in keeping with EFSA’s commitment to review its guidance for risk assessment on an ongoing basis, this work will be revised as appropriate.

• Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain

• Outcome of the public consultation on the draft scientific opinion on Guidance on risk assessment concerning potential risks arising from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies to food and feed

Food Safety, Technology EFSA, Nanomaterial

The food industry is constantly working on new methods to lengthen the shelf life of foods. Elisabeth Fischer finds out how growing consumer demands for quality and safety are pushing the most promising new treatments on the market.

Even before food scientists and technologists entered the industry, the extension of shelf life has been at the centre of handling foods. Traditional treatments such as canning, heating and other preserving methods with salt and sugar have been around for hundreds of years, based on the human desire to also survive lean times.

Changing consumer demands, however, have altered the treatment of foodstuff and research into better processes to extend shelf life has surged. The requirements for new technologies are precise: they should have less detrimental effects and result in no changes in the appearance, texture and flavour of the products.

“Traditional treatments have a devastating effect on the structure, taste, appearance and nutritional value of the food,” says food technology consultant at the Guelph Food Technology Centre in Ontario, John Michaelides. “The new demands of consumers for fresher, natural and health delivering food products forces the industry to look at non-thermal processes, gentle processing and natural antioxidants and antimicrobials.”

Gentle processing

The new credo of the industry, with consumers demanding organic, whole food products in the same breath with a guarantee for prolonged freshness, is gentle processing techniques to conserve the healthy components of food. This, however, is an enormous challenge for food scientists, as it is practically impossible to directly control the environments a product experiences once it is in the distribution channel. Therefore, researchers have to take numerous factors into account when developing new methods.

“One of the major challenges is to develop technologies that are effective and efficient,” says John Michaelides. “These technologies come in the form of equipment, packaging materials or ingredients.

“Because of the multiple issues with shelf life of food products a single technology may not be sufficient to extend the shelf life of the product.

“In addition, the technologies need to be cost-effective and their application practical and economical in order to be adopted by the food industry,” says Michaelides.

Microwave sterilisation

Researchers from the Washington State University in the US claim to have found the key to some of the problems with the technologies to make food that, will look, taste and be as nutritious as the original product – but with a shelf life of more than six months.

The microwave-assisted thermal sterilisation (MATS) process immerses packaged food in pressurised hot water while at the same time heating it with microwaves. Eliminating food pathogens and spoilage micro organisms in five to eight minutes, the treatment produces foodstuff with a much higher quality than conventionally processed ready-to-eat products.

Developed over a 13-year period by the university in collaboration with a number of food companies and the US Army, the technology received a second approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 2010, leaving the researchers confident that the technology will soon be on the market.

“The first approval validates the scientific and engineering premises behind our work,” said research leader Juming Tang in a statement in February this year.

“The second approval makes the technology viable for processing more complex food systems, which is a major milestone to commercialisation.”

Tang said that the breakthrough in the development process came with the introduction of a new chemical marker system to identify a product’s cold spot and ensure that this was heated to 120°C-132°C. The team also overcame the challenge to provide proof that the product has been sterilised.

Food technology consultant, John Michaelides, believes that microwave sterilisation “seems to be a promising technology. The technology developers claim that it has been commercially applied. But I think the technology is fairly new and needs to be evaluated for many other food systems.”

Edible coatings

Elsewhere, efforts in the preservation of fresh meat, which seems to be one of the biggest challenges of the food industry, are being made. Researchers from the Public University of Navarra in Spain have claimed to have developed antimicrobial edible coatings, which extend the shelf life of meat by up to 50%, to around 13 days.

Made from eight different essential oils – oregano, clove, white thyme, tea tree, coriander, sage, laurel and rosemary – the films are applied to the surface of a meat product, just like “a second skin, undetectable by consumers”, according to researcher Idoya Fernández Pan. Oils from these herbs were shown to be effective against various microbial strains such as staphylococcus aureus, salmonella enteritidis, listeria innocua and pseudomona fragi.

The research focused primarily on chicken breasts and the coatings, made up of a series of antimicrobial agents, which were incorporated into the structural matrix of the product and then gradually secreted on to the surface of the meat.

“Through a bacteriostatic effect, which impedes the proliferation of bacteria, the speed of growth of the pathogen or altering agent is reduced, thus enhancing the food safety of the product and extending its shelf life,” said Fernández, an agricultural engineer. According to the researchers, the outcomes of their studies have a potential direct application for the food industry, as the delaying effect on the microflora growth results in extending storage and distribution time for fresh meat products.

Food technology consultant, John Michaelides, however, warns of rash conclusions. “Although some of these oils have been well understood, their use and commercial availability may be in its infancy,” he says. “The incorporation into edible films and application to the surface of food products is at the research stage and needs to be carefully evaluated before commercial acceptance.”

Carbon dioxide-emitting patches

CO2 pads are seen as another promising way to extend the shelf life of food. The patches, placed inside the food packaging, to gradually emit CO2 displacing oxygen and ethylene and consequently deprive aerobic micro organisms from the ability to grow and multiply.

In February 2011, a Colorado-based company received FDA approval for a CO2 pad technology, used for meats, poultry, seafood, fruit and vegetables. According to the inventors, the pads are already used by meat plants, food processors, restaurants and wholesale businesses in the US, helping to extend the shelf life of perishable foods and to provide a high-quality product.

“Major meat processing plants in Arizona and Colorado are now using the CO2 pads in ground beef, poultry and seafood to retard bacteria growth and extend shelf life,” said president of JS Food Brokers Barney Seward in an official statement. Food safety and quality would have significantly improved with the patches.

John Michaelides, however, remains sceptical and says that the patches are not foolproof. “Their use should be carefully considered as the creation of micro-aerobic or a completely anaerobic environment may create safety issues with some pathogens if other controls such as refrigeration or pH are not implemented. In addition to oxygen they displace ethylene thus slowing the ripening of fruits and vegetables. Displacement of oxygen will prevent oil oxidation as well.”

The question of food safety

Along with the development of new methods to prolong shelf life, also comes the question of how these treatments influence the structure and quality of food. Old but proven technologies are continuously being replaced due to the evolution of knowledge about products as well as growing consumer demands for gentle processing. However, the new technologies can entail new dangers for the safety of food.

According to John Michaelides from the Food Technology Centre in Ontario, Canada, the question of safety for the product has to be re-asked and tested with every new technology. With strict approval processes in countries such as in the US through the FDA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Canada and various regional organisations in Europe, the failure of such new methods has almost been barred.

Nevertheless, demands on safety are greater than ever before. Food quality has increasingly become a selling factor as consumers ask for fresher, more natural and healthy products. New technologies, to extend the shelf life of food, have to go with this trend and provide highest quality while guaranteeing a longer shelf life.

Source: Food Processing Technology

Food Safety food safety, food shelf life

Campylobacter, salmonella and Listeria are among a handful of foodborne bugs that cost the US billions of dollars a year and blight the quality of life for million of victims, according to new research.

The study from the University of Florida ranking the top ten riskiest combinations of bacteria and foods found that just 14 pathogens cause $14.1bn dollars in cost of illness and kill an estimated 1,322 people annually.

More than 90 per cent of the cost burden – some $12.7bn – is caused by just five bacteria: campylobacter ssp, salmonella, listeria monocytogenes, toxoplasma gondi and norovirus, said the group from the body’s Emerging Pathogen Institute.

The scientists also calculated the effect the pathogens have in loss of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) – a measurement of health-related quality of life. They found the line up of 14 bugs cost Americans more than 61,000 QALY a year.

The two parameters included the cost of medical care and lost productivity from employee sick days, as well as the expense of serious complications or chronic disabilities that result from the acute illness.

Rankings

The team broke down the effect of the pathogens into two types; a straight analysis of the overall impact of each bacteria across all food types and estimates of the pathogens in combination with certain foods.

In the first metric, salmonella topped the league of foodborne bugs, costing more than $3bn in illness, responsible for over 19,000 hospitalizations, as well as causing in excess of one million illnesses and 378 deaths.

Toxoplasma, with 327 deaths, almost 4,500 hospitalizations and nearly $3bn in illness costs was next.

Third riskiest bug was campylobacter – the source of 76 deaths, almost 850,000 illnesses, 8,500 hospitalizations and $1.7bn in illness costs. Listeria costs $2,65bn and killed 255.

Combination

In the combination category a different picture emerged with Campylobacter and poultry found to be the riskiest mixture – costing $1.2bn, as well as causing 608,000 illnesses and 55 deaths annually.

Toxoplasmosis and pork was number two in the illness ranking, followed by Listeria in deli meats and salmonella in poultry. Listeria in dairy products ranked fifth, followed by salmonella in complex foods.

“The number of hazards and scale of the food system make for a critical challenge for consumers and government alike,” said Michael Batz, lead author of the report Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health. “Government agencies must work together to effectively target their efforts. If we don’t identify which pairs of foods and microbes present the greatest burden, we’ll waste time and resources and put even more people at risk.”

The team acknowledged there were “significant uncertainties” in its data sources and model assumptions used to obtain its estimates. They said they research should nevertheless act as “an important starting point in an ongoing process to improve our understanding of the very complex interactions among pathogens and foods in the US food system”.

Source: Food  production daily

Food Safety Campylobacter, foodborne bugs, Listeria, Salmonella

The European Parliament’s Environment committee is pushing for a warning label on products containing aspartame stating that they may not be suitable for pregnant women – despite opinions from EFSA and the French food safety ANSES that scientific evidence does not warrant a reconsideration of the sweetener’s safety.

An amendment to the food labelling proposal, currently in second reading, that would require the words “Contains aspartame (a source of phenylalanine; might be unsuitable for pregnant women)” was put forward by French MEP Corinne Lepage.

It follows the publication of a study Danish epidemiological study that saw a statistical association between the consumption of soft drinks containing sweeteners and increased risk of preterm delivery as a result of a medical decision following complications. The authors said the results, whether or not there is a causal link, needs to be confirmed by other studies.

This study, together with another from Italy reporting increased incidence of cancer in male mice fed very high doses of aspartame, has been reviewed by EFSA and by the French food safety agency ANSES, who said that preliminary examination give no grounds for amending the ADI of 40mg.kg.bw, but that further studies would be monitored.

Fair hearing or role-playing?

Moreover, last month an EFSA scientist took part in a hearing at the European Parliament on aspartame, to explain the work the authority has carried out on the sweetener over the years and the review of the latest studies.

After the hearing, however, Corinne Lepage, invoked the precautionary principle and accused industry, as risk managers, and EFSA, as risk assessor, of “role playing”.

She said that no independent evaluation of the studies had taken place, and that there sound be recommendations for pregnant women so pregnant women can be aware there is some uncertainty over aspartame and decide whether or not to expose themselves to it.

EFSA responded with disappointment over the reporting of the meeting’s outcome. It said in a statement: “Unfortunately, when reporting the outcomes of this meeting, the organisers of the hearing continue to repeat errors and misinformation. EFSA reaffirms that any possible risks from aspartame have been considered by scientific bodies worldwide and the current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) ensures consumers are protected…

“EFSA’s most critical commitment is to provide independent scientific advice of the highest quality and it has put in place a very stringent set of procedures and processes to guarantee the independence of its scientific decision-making – as organisers of this event know very well”

Ignoring EFSA?

It is not yet certain that the warning label on aspartame will be included in the new regulation, as the next stage of the law-making process is a series of trilogues between the Parliament, Council and Commission ahead of a vote in plenary in July.

However the amendment on aspartame is not the first time MEPs have sought a warning label on additives for which the Commission’s risk assessor has found no grounds for altering the ADI.

Following the publication of the controversial ‘Southampton study’ which reported a link between cocktails of certain food colourings plus sodium benzoate with hyperactivity in children, MEPs voted on a mandatory warning label on any products containing them – despite EFSA’s opinion that the Southampton study, in its own right, was no grounds for changing recommendations.

EFSA has since lowered the ADIs of some of the colours in question – but for reasons other than a link with hyperactivity, which has not been substantiated in studies on the individual colours.

More recently, MEPs put forward a motion to prohibit a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Commission (EC)-approved DHA omega-3 eye health claim on breast milk substitute products. The motion was narrowly rejected in a vote.

Source: Food navigator

Food Safety aspartame, EFSA, food labelling, pregnancy