Help Support EcoWatch
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience while browsing it. By clicking 'Got It' you're accepting these terms.
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Astrakan Images / Cultura / Getty Images
Under pressure from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other environmental and public health groups, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned seven substances used in artificial flavors that have been linked to cancer in animals.
<p>
"Chemicals that could cause cancer should never have been allowed in our food in the first place, especially not hiding behind the confusing label of 'artificial flavors,'" said Melanie Benesh, EWG's legislative attorney. "The FDA finally did the right thing by taking this important step to better protect consumers."
</p><p>
These food additives are most commonly used to enhance the flavor of baked goods, ice cream, candy, chewing gum and beverages. The newly banned flavors are benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether, myrcene, pulegone, pyridine and styrene.
</p><p>
"Consumers will never know which foods were made with these chemicals, since manufacturers have been allowed to hide these ingredients behind the vague term 'flavor,'" said Dawn Undurraga, EWG's nutritionist. "This is a positive step forward, but the FDA should empower consumers to make their own fully informed decisions by requiring full ingredient disclosure."
</p><p>
The ban on styrene was also supported by a petition from the food industry. But the FDA acted on the other six after public interest groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit petitioning the FDA to make a final decision whether to prohibit the seven cancer-causing artificial chemicals from use in food.
</p><p>
Earthjustice represented the petitioners, including Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1050008173053177857" id="twitter-embed-1050008173053177857" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1050008173053177857&created_ts=1539176431.0&screen_name=NRDC&text=%22We+think+this+is+a+win+for+consumers.+Our+petition+laid+out+the+science+linking+these+flavoring+chemicals+to+cance%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fijya5LiJPi&id=1050008173053177857&name=NRDC+%F0%9F%8C%8E" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="8A0ZCQ1576662851"></iframe>
Manufacturers that use these food additives will have two years to comply with the new rules.<br>
</p><p>
To learn more about the chemicals used in processed foods, please visit EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives</a>. Consumers looking for healthier options can also visit EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodscores#.W7zC-i2ZNTY" target="_blank">Food Scores</a> database or download EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/apps/" target="_blank">Healthy Living App,</a> which provides ratings for more than 120,000 food and personal care products.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Gail Koffman
"The fox guarding the hen house" aptly describes the inner workings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration.
A major case in point: The EPA official tasked to head up the Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention office, Nancy Beck, came to the job after working as a former high-level official for a chemical industry association. She was charged with updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which addresses the production, use and disposal of such chemicals as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon and lead-based paint.
<p style="">Not surprisingly, Beck's updated TSCA regulations <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/final-tsca-framework-rules-significantly-weakened-edf" target="_blank">significantly weaken government regulations</a> over these chemicals in consumer products and building materials by removing the provision for regulating all uses of chemicals.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-894940269543600128" id="twitter-embed-894940269543600128" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-894940269543600128&created_ts=1502205362.0&screen_name=EcoWatch&text=%27Industry+Friendly%27+%40EPA+Completes+Review+of+600+New+Chemicals+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FSlI8X2P5d1+%40EnvDefenseFund+%40ewg+%40OrganicConsumer&id=894940269543600128&name=EcoWatch" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="0SU1CY1548946900"></iframe></p><p style="">In response, <a href="http://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> filed two <a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Pet%20for%20Rev-Prioritization%20Rule.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuits against the EPA</a> late last week for weakening these regulations. The suits were filed on behalf of organizations representing populations that are most at risk from weakened chemical regulations—low-income communities, parents and teachers of children with learning disabilities, workers and indigenous populations. </p><p style="">The <a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Pet%20for%20Rev-Risk%20Eval%20Rule.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuits</a> challenge two EPA regulations that set ground rules for how the EPA will prioritize chemicals for safety review and then evaluate the risks of those chemicals under TSCA.</p><p style="">"The EPA's newly adopted rules will leave children, communities and workers vulnerable to dangerous chemicals," said Earthjustice attorney Eve Gartner. "This lawsuit is about one thing: holding the Trump EPA to the letter of the law and ensuring it fulfills its mandate to protect the public."</p><p>Under the Obama administration, <a href="http://earthjustice.org/blog/2016-october/seven-ways-the-new-tsca-will-protect-you" target="_blank">Congress strengthened the TSCA</a>, requiring the EPA to conduct comprehensive risk evaluations of chemicals. These evaluations devoted special attention to all of the risks posed to vulnerable populations and to consider all the ways a chemical may be used to account for all possible sources of exposure, otherwise known as the "conditions of use" provision.</p><p style="" rel="">The Trump administration's revision of TSCA is an entirely different matter. "The most significant change is whether the EPA must consider all 'conditions of use' as part of the risk evaluation process," explained attorney Eve Gartner. "If the EPA can pick and choose which uses of a chemical it will consider, it could ignore some sources of exposure. And that could lead the agency to underestimate the risk the chemical poses to public health."</p><p style="">For more than six years, <a href="http://earthjustice.org/primary-tag/tsca" target="_blank">Earthjustice has fought for TSCA reform</a> to ensure the EPA adequately protects the public and environment from harmful chemicals. </p><p style="">Earthjustice filed Friday's complaints in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of <a href="https://www.weact.org/" target="_blank">WE ACT for Environmental Justice</a>, <a href="https://ldaamerica.org/" target="_blank">Learning Disabilities Association of America</a>, <a href="https://www.usw.org/" target="_blank">United Steelworkers</a>, <a href="https://www.akaction.org/" target="_blank">Alaska Community Action on Toxics</a>, the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, <a href="http://www.ourhealthyfuture.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Health Strategy Center</a>, the <a href="http://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> and the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>.</p><p style="">"What Mr. Trump may not realize is that many residents, especially tenants living in poor or substandard housing, disproportionately suffer from respiratory problems such as asthma," said Dr. Adrienne Hollis, director of federal policy at WE ACT for Environmental Justice.</p><p style="">"We need to know the risks of chemicals used in our communities because exposure often exacerbates health disparities and outcomes. Enforcement of chemical laws to keep our communities healthy should be a top priority for the EPA."</p><p style="" rel="">Regarding the harm of toxic chemicals to children, Patricia Lillie, president of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, said, "These rules ... give the EPA authority to choose to ignore chemical uses that could result in prenatal and children's exposures to chemicals that are linked to learning and developmental disabilities."</p><p style="">Earthjustice also joined the <a href="http://saferchemicals.org/" target="_blank">Safer Chemicals Healthy Families</a> in sending a <a href="http://saferchemicals.org/sc/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/saferchemicals.org_letter_re_nancy_beck_050917.pdf" target="_blank">strong letter</a> to EPA director <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a>, expressing concern about Nancy Beck's conflict of interest in overseeing chemical regulations. Beck's weakening of TSCA is a toxic case in point.</p>
Read More
Show Less
epa
united steelworkers
lead
chemicals
scott pruitt
alaska community action of toxics
learning disabilities association of america
safer chemicals healthy families
earthjustice
environmental health strategy center
we act for environmental justice
environmental working group
union of concerned scientists
sierra club