From: France 24

France’s ecology minister on Tuesday said she would seek labelling requirements for food containers made with bisphenol A (BPA) after a watchdog agency sharpened its concern about this chemical.

“What I propose first of all is systematic labelling of products containing BPA when the product comes into contact with the public,” the minister told AFP….Labelling would be obligatory and the measure would be introduced swiftly, she said.

Kosciusko-Morizet said she would also propose a ban on BPA for specific products whenever the compound could be substituted by another chemical proven to be safe.

Several countries have introduced voluntary measures or laws to stop the manufacture of baby bottles with BPA and published guidelines on safer use of these containers. In June 2010, the French parliament banned BPA-containing baby bottles.

We will keep you updated on any regulatory changes that result.

From The Center For Consumer Freedom:

Since Prop 65’s passage in 1986, lawyers have exploited this safe-drinking-water law to shakedown food manufacturers for producing foods that have chemicals in them that might—emphasize might—be carcinogenic, depending on the exposure. In their sights now is a chemical called acrylamide. In 1990, California listed acrylamide as potentially hazardous due to concerns about workplace exposure. But more recently, scientists discovered that acrylamide can form in foods (in very, very low levels) during frying, roasting, and baking.

In May, a California law firm filed a lawsuit over acrylamide being in coffee and demanded warning labels on every cup of joe. Sound a little overzealous? Washington D.C.-based WTOP reports that even the Food and Drug Administration says acrylamide isn’t a major health issue:

“The FDA is continuing its research on acrylamide, but there is nothing that has been shown that this is a public health concern,” says FDA spokesman Doug Karas.

Karas says recent tests on animals showed that when exposed to very high levels of acrylamide, it can lead to cancer. But he says those are “much higher levels than we would ever be exposed to when eating.”

How much higher? The average person is exposed to levels of acrylamide thousands of times lower than the amount that causes cancer in lab rats. In order to be in any real danger from acrylamide, a person of average weight would have to consume 62 pounds of potato chips or 182 pounds of french fries every day for a lifetime.

For the full story, click on the link above.

From: Los Angeles Times

California appellate court this week reignited a case that alleges that the chicken-grilling process used by McDonald’s Corp., TGI Friday’s, Applebee’s, Chick-fil-A, Chili’s and Outback Steakhouse creates a cancer-causing chemical — and therefore that state law requires the restaurateurs to warn consumers about it.

A watchdog group called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine  said it tested grilled chicken samples from a variety of restaurants. They found, according to court documents, the presence of the chemical PhIP…So they sued seven chains in 2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming that California law required the businesses to give customers a “clear and reasonable warning” about carcinogenic products in their food.

The lower court granted a summary judgment in favor of the restaurants in 2009. But on Thursday, the state’s Second District Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, and ruled that a federal law for cooking chicken didn’t preempt the state warning requirements.

Click on the links for more information.

Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: CPSC compliance, OSHA MSDS authoring, MSDS authoring

From: Legal.com

…In January 2008, PCRM, a nonprofit organization self-described as “committed to promoting a safe and healthful diet and to protecting consumers from food and drink that are dangerous or unhealthful”, filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against seven chain restaurant corporations (Restaurants), seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and declaratory relief to prevent the Restaurants “from continuing to sell grilled chicken products to consumers without clear and reasonable warnings about the carcinogenic effects of those products.” The complaint alleged that McDonald’s, TGI Friday’s, Applebee’s, Chick-Fil-A, Chili’s, and Outback Steakhouse each sold grilled chicken products to consumers in California, and that the cooking process used to grill the chicken created a chemical called PhIP. The complaint alleged that warnings about the PhIP in grilled chicken were required under the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249 et seq. (Proposition 65), “under which restaurants and other businesses must provide persons with a `clear and reasonable warning’ before exposing consumers to carcinogenic chemicals in the food that they sell and serve.” The complaint requested an injunction requiring each of the Restaurants to provide warnings and pay statutory civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, and a declaratory judgment that each of the Restaurants was in violation of Proposition 65 and was required to disclose that its grilled chicken contained a carcinogen…

Click on the above link for more information.

Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: CPSC compliance, OSHA MSDS authoring, MSDS authoring

From Calgary Examiners:

Europe has moved one step closer in protecting kids from the harmful effects of artificial food coloring.  Starting this week, foods and drinks that contain six artificial food colorings linked to hyperactivity in children will be required to contain a warning label.

The UK’s Food Standards Agency released this statement about the changes:
An EU-wide health warning must now be put on any food or drink that still contains the colours that are thought to cause hyperactivity in some children. This is following the Southampton Study, commissioned by the Agency, which suggested a possible link between consumption of six food colours and hyperactivity in children.

The colours are Tartrazine (E102), Quinoline Yellow (E104), Sunset Yellow (E110), Carmoisine (E122), Ponceau 4R (E124) and Allura Red (E129).

Any food and drink containing any of the six colours, except drinks with more than 1.2% alcohol, will now have to provide a warning on the label that the colour ‘may have effects on activity and attention in children’. This becomes mandatory across the EU from 20 July 2010. Food and drink produced before 20 July 2010 can continue to be marketed, so it may take time for newly labelled products to appear on some store shelves.

These additives are known by different names in the United States.  Three of them are widely used in the U.S.  On labels here, they are known as:
•    FD and C Yellow 5
•    FD and C Yellow 6
•    FD and C Red 40

All three dyes are widely believed to be carcinogenic (cancer causing), as well.

Click on the links for more information.
Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: REACH compliance, EU SDS authoring, SDS authoring

From Courant.com:

Connecticut moved a step closer Tuesday to banning the sale of plastic baby bottles, food containers and cups containing a chemical that has been restricted in Canada and that some scientists say is a health threat.

A legislative committee unanimously endorsed restrictions on making, selling or distributing products in Connecticut made with bisphenol-A, or BPA. The substance is commonly used to harden plastic and make it shatterproof, and to line the insides of certain food containers.

Connecticut, California, Oregon, Hawaii and several other states are considering a ban or limits on the chemical. Suffolk County, on New York’s Long Island, last month became the first place in the nation to enact a ban. Canada announced a ban on the substance in baby bottles, becoming the first country last year to restrict the sale of the chemical.

If approved by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the law would phase in restrictions over the next few years to prohibit making, selling or distributing baby bottles and certain other products made with BPA. Warning labels also would be required on all food products — not just infant formulas and others intended for children — that come in containers made with BPA and sold in Connecticut.

Click on the above link for more information.

Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: OSHA MSDS Authoring, CPSC Consumer Label Reviews, Nexreg.

CNN on regulatory changes that are being lobbied for:

We’ve reached out to advocacy groups to see what they thought were some of the most pressing issues or policy changes this new administration must tackle…

Fund the Consumer Product Safety Commission so it can enforce the new product-safety act. This act improves and expands standards and safety for children’s products.

Fix the food-safety system. The government should be able to trace a product from start to finish. Right now, tracing a product’s path is a stumbling block for the government, according to Butler.

Click on the above link for more information.

Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: OSHA MSDS Authoring, CPSC Consumer Label Reviews, Nexreg.

From Health Day News:

Responding to concerns that food labels aren’t doing enough to alert consumers to the presence of allergens, or that the labels are just plain confusing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is hosting a public hearing Tuesday on what it can do to improve things.

“If you go down the candy aisle and you pick up any number of candy bars or other confectionery products, you are going to see a variety of these ‘may contain’-type labels: ‘may contain peanuts,’ ‘processed on shared equipment,’ ‘manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts or milk or whatever it is,’” said Anne Munoz Furlong, founder of The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network in Fairfax, Va. “Nobody knows what it means. Some 1/8labels 3/8 are completely ridiculous, and the result is that consumers are confused and are forced to have very limited food choices or take risks.”

“We would like to see all of the food industry adopt one set of criteria for using these descriptions and a limited number of those descriptions,” Furlong added. “There are about 30 different ways to say ‘may contain’ on the marketplace. That’s way too many.”…

The hearings are part of a “long-term strategy” on the part of the FDA to help manufacturers upgrade their labeling practices, making them both clear and truthful…

The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA) required new labels on packaged foods containing “major food allergens,” which were defined as milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts and soybeans, or any other ingredient that contains protein derived from one of these foods or food groups.

More information available at the above link or from the FDA here .

From the Canada Gazette:

Provision currently exists in the Food and Drug Regulations for the use of allura red, sunset yellow FCF and tartrazine as colouring agents in a variety of food products, including fish roe (caviar) at a maximum level of use of 300 ppm, singly or in combination. Brilliant blue FCF is permitted as a colouring agent in various foods, including fish roe (caviar) at a maximum level of use of 100 ppm, singly or in combination with fast green FCF.

Health Canada has received a submission to permit the use of a blend of allura red, brilliant blue FCF, sunset yellow FCF and tartrazine as colouring agents in lumpfish caviar at a level of 800 ppm. The maximum level of use for allura red, sunset yellow FCF and tartrazine, singly or in combination, would be 550 ppm and the maximum level of use for brilliant blue FCF would be 300 ppm. Evaluation of available data supports the safety and effectiveness of allura red, brilliant blue FCF, sunset yellow FCF and tartrazine as colouring agents in the production of lumpfish caviar.

The use of allura red, brilliant blue FCF, sunset yellow FCF and tartrazine will benefit consumers by increasing the availability of quality food products. It will also benefit industry through more efficient and improved manufacturing conditions.

Therefore, it is the intention of Health Canada to recommend that the Food and Drug Regulations be amended to permit the use of allura red, sunset yellow FCF and tartrazine as colouring agents in the production of lumpfish caviar, singly or in combination, at a maximum level of use of 550 ppm, and to permit the use of brilliant blue FCF as a colouring agent in the production of lumpfish caviar at a maximum level of use of 300 ppm with a total level of the four colours not to exceed 800 ppm.

Click on the above link for more information.

From FlexNews:

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA has been working since 2007 on a comprehensive evaluation of flavouring substances currently in use in the European Union.

Flavourings are divided into 48 chemical groups and EFSA is evaluating each group separately, focusing on the implications of individual flavourings for human health. Since EFSA’s update in January, the former AFC[1] Panel looked at a further 15 flavouring groups. The Panel identified data gaps for some of the flavourings including carvone-5, 6 oxide (FL-no: 16.042), butyramide (FL-no:16.049), aminoacetophenone (FL-no:11.008), 5-methylfurfural (FL-no:13.001), 2-benzofurancarboxaldehyde (FL-no:13.031). These flavourings are currently used in different types of foods, including dairy products, confectionary, meat and fish products and alcoholic beverages

The Panel concluded that data currently available were insufficient to exclude genotoxic potential of these substances and is requesting that applicants provide information that will confirm that these flavourings are safe to use in foods.

Since the beginning of the evaluation, the Panel has discussed and adopted some 70 opinions on food flavourings. Some of these 70 opinions have been published and some are now undergoing final editorial changes and will be shortly published on the EFSA website. EFSA intends to complete the evaluation of all flavourings by mid-2009.

Click on the above link for the full story. More in Future not so bright for food colourants:

But i July the European parliament took a very bold step towards that ban, by adopting a legislative package that will compel the makers of products containing any of the six artificial colours named in the Southampton study to include a health warning for children on the label.

They are tartrazine ,E102, quinoline yellow, E104, sunset yellow, E110, carmoisine, E122, ponceau 4R, E124, and allura red, E129.

The warning will read: “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children”.

Manufacturers have 18 months to comply with the new labelling requirements.