Rebooting the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) approach for food additive safety in the US

Abstract

SummaryThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has premarket review authority over food additives, but a food manufacturer may, according to the legislation, intentionally add a substance to human food or animal food without their premarket review or approval if the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, to be safe under the conditions of its intended use. Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) implies that the current scientific community agrees on the adequacy of how data is generated. This system has come under public pressure because of doubts as to its efficiency and the FDA's recent GRAS rule is part of the response. The FDA guidance for testing food additives, known as the "Redbook", is about two decades old. Work toward a new "Redbook" is on the way, but the US Grocery Manufacturer Association (GMA) also has initiated the development of an independent standard on how to perform GRAS determinations. This review of the current guidance shows a very rigorous system for higher concern levels, but also many waiving options. Opportunities and challenges for safety evaluations of food additives are discussed. Where scientific progress has allowed improving existing and adapting new methods, these should be adopted to improve product safety and animal welfare. The continuous adaptation of such improved methods is therefore needed. Especially, there are opportunities to embrace developments within the toxicity testing for the 21 st century movement and evidence-based toxicology approaches. Also, the growing understanding of the limitations of traditional tests needs to be considered.

Lesion Sensing during Initial Binding by Yeast XPC/Rad4: Toward Predicting Resistance to Nucleotide Excision Repair

“…Predictive toxicology is showing promise with the recently demonstrated capability for identifying toxicity of chemicals, such as candidate additives for foods, that rivals results obtained with animal testing. 5,6 …”

A Review of the Alleged Health Hazards of Monosodium Glutamate

“…A food additive can be included on the GRAS list if widely used in food prior to 1958 (approval based on experience) or when its safety is confirmed by scientific toxicological reports based on its estimated dietary intake. However, some authors now argue that GRAS inclusion criteria, either for scientific‐based or for experience‐based procedures require updating, based on the developments made in toxicity testing (Barraj, Murphy, Tran, & Petersen, ; Burdock, Carabin, & Griffiths, ; Hartung, ). As a consequence, in 2006, EFSA established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for several food additives taking into account their no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products, and the Environment, ).…”

Machine Learning of Toxicological Big Data Enables Read-Across Structure Activity Relationships (RASAR) Outperforming Animal Test Reproducibility

“…The approach also allows addressing the backlog of other untested substances, eg, the almost ten thousand flavors used in e-cigarettes ( Hartung, 2016b ) or several thousand food additives and contact materials ( Hartung, 2018 ) or help with emergency assessments or frontload toxicity testing in product development. The latter is referred to as Green Toxicology ( Crawford et al , 2017 ; Maertens et al , 2014 ; Maertens and Hartung, 2018 ), ie, synthesizing (“benign design”) likely nontoxic substances or sort out toxic ones by earlier informing the product development process.…”