[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 43 (Monday, March 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8291-8292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4858]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 95N-0409]


Alternative and Traditional Models for Safety Evaluation of Food 
Ingredients; Announcement of Study; Request for Scientific Data and 
Information; Announcement of Open Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the 
Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) of the Federation of American 
Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) will undertake a 
comprehensive discussion of the scientific criteria and principles 
generally agreed upon by scientists in the food safety community as 
necessary for demonstrating that a food ingredient is safe. This 
discussion will include both a description of the data needed to ensure 
safety or to achieve a reasonable certainty that the ingredient will 
not cause harm and alternative approaches for achieving that assurance 
when traditional approaches do not definitively resolve safety 
questions.
    To assist in the preparation of a scientific report, LSRO/FASEB is 
inviting the submission of scientific data and information regarding 
this topic. LSRO/FASEB will provide an opportunity for oral 
presentations at an open meeting.

DATES: LSRO/FASEB has scheduled a 1-day public meeting on this topic 
for May 15, 1996. Requests to make oral presentations at the open 
meeting must be submitted in writing and received by April 24, 1996. 
Submit written presentations of scientific data, information, and views 
on or before May 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests to make oral presentations at the 
open meeting to both the Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of 
American Societies for Experimental Biology, 9650 Rockville Pike, 
Bethesda, MD 20814-3998 and to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), 
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, 
MD 20857. Two copies of the scientific data, information, and views for 
presentation should be submitted to each office. The meeting will be 
held in the Chen Auditorium, Lee Bldg., FASEB (address above).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Raiten or Sue Ann Anderson, 
Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for 
Experimental Biology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3998, 
301-530-7030, on the scheduling of presentations at the public meeting 
and related matters. Other information may be obtained from Victor 
Frattali, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-2), Food 
and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-
1730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA has a contract (223-92-2185) with LSRO/
FASEB concerning the analysis of scientific issues that bear on the 
safety of foods and cosmetics. The objectives of this contract are to 
provide information to FDA on general and specific issues of scientific 
fact associated with the analysis of human nutrition.
    As one task under the contract, FDA has requested information on 
matters related to the adequacy of data needed to support decisions on 
the safety of food ingredients. Currently, FDA provides safety testing 
guidelines for food ingredients through a publication entitled 
``Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Direct Food 
Additives and Color Additives Used in Food'' (also known as the 
``Redbook''). This document gives guidance to petitioners primarily for 
those situations in which a traditional approach to safety testing is 
appropriate (i.e., those in which food additives to be used in low 
concentrations are tested for safety).
     However, traditional studies involving administration of 
substances constituting a large part of an animal's diet may produce 
adverse effects simply as a result of the unusual diet rather than the 
inherent toxicity of the test substance. Further, FDA recognizes that 
the advent of new technologies such as genetic engineering of 
traditional foods and novel uses of plant products, as well as 
development of macroingredients, present new situations for which an 
alternative approach to safety assessment may be needed. While FDA has 
successfully reached decisions on food ingredients produced with such 
new technologies on a case-by-case basis, it has become clear that a 
need exists for information on the criteria that the scientific 
community believes are appropriate so that both a requirement for new 
types of safety studies and any elimination or limitation of the role 
of traditional studies can be justified. Types of food ingredients for 
which an alternative model may be appropriate include, for example, 
macroingredient substitutes such as psyllium, ingredients derived from 
botanicals such as Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni, restructured fats such as 
caprenin, and ingredients derived using biotechnology.
    Based on an evolving need to be responsive to the development of 
food ingredients resulting from new technologies, FDA wishes to have 
LSRO/FASEB prepare a comprehensive report on the principles and 
criteria generally agreed upon by the community of food safety experts 
for determining when the traditional safety model is appropriate. The 
agency is also interested in a discussion identifying the principles 
and criteria to be used to determine the safety of a food ingredient 
when the traditional safety model is not appropriate. FDA is especially 
interested in a discussion of how different principles and criteria 
should be ranked and weighted, interrelationships that should be 
considered, and any situation where a principle or criterion might be 
considered determinative without regard to other considerations. It 
would also be desirable to have a discussion about how the new testing 
approaches may substitute for more traditional testing.
    In framing this discussion, FDA has suggested that the following 
questions be considered. These questions are not intended as a 
statement of specific tasks. They are intended to be illustrative and 
to be used as a basis for stimulating thinking regarding the 
determination of the safe use of food ingredients.
    1. In what cases, if any, are animal feeding studies not necessary 
to ensure safety? For example: Do such studies need to be conducted for 
ingredients that also occur naturally in foods at similar or higher 
concentrations? Is it reasonable and necessary to test food-like 
substances for toxicity and nutritional influences recognizing the 
potential for confounding results? If so, how?
    2. To what extent can chemical and structural similarity to food 
ingredients known to be safe obviate the need for animal or human 
testing?
    3. What criteria should be used to determine when a treatment-
related effect (including effects from nutritional imbalance or 
interference) is an adverse effect?
    4. Are there criteria that can be used to determine whether an 
adverse effect observed in a study is relevant to human safety as 
opposed to an effect that is dependent on study design and has no 

[[Page 8292]]
relevance to safety under actual use conditions?
    5. Under what circumstances should clinical studies in humans 
supplement or replace studies in laboratory animals? How will use of 
human data affect the need for safety factors? Which parameters should 
be measured and what study duration is necessary?
    6. Is there an agreed-upon basis for determining the maximum level 
of an additive to be administered in a test diet above which a study 
should be presumed unacceptable?
    7. Can postmarketing surveillance (such as monitoring of use or 
monitoring of adverse reaction reports by consumers and physicians) be 
used to ensure safety? For example, can such surveillance be used 
without compromising safety to verify exposure estimates or to 
eliminate the need for specific data prior to marketing, thus reducing 
the need to use worst-case assumptions in a safety evaluation? If so, 
how could this be accomplished?
    The objective of this review is to make recommendations on the set 
of circumstances under which the scientific community believes that the 
use of a safety model that is an alternative to the traditional safety 
model is justified and will ensure the safety of food ingredients. Such 
discussions would include: (1) Circumstances prompting the need for new 
types of studies, (2) circumstances in which traditional studies should 
not be required or should be modified or their use limited, and (3) the 
appropriate use of safety factors. FDA also requests a description of 
the principles and criteria that would be used in the nontraditional or 
alternative situations and a ranking/weighting of these criteria and 
principles.
    The project is divided into two phases. In the first phase, LSRO/
FASEB will solicit input from 40 to 60 members of the food safety 
community. The nature of this input from each individual will be in the 
form of a 3- to 5-page ``white paper'' which will contain expert 
opinion on issues related to food ingredient safety evaluations. 
Individuals will be asked to furnish sufficient background material 
with their white papers to provide a basis for comment on the issues 
being addressed by LSRO/FASEB in this contract.
    A Phase I Expert Panel composed of five members will be convened by 
LSRO/FASEB. LSRO/FASEB staff will assemble a background document for 
the Phase I Expert Panel that consists of a compilation of the 
previously obtained comments from the scientific community. This 
background document is intended to provide a perspective for the Phase 
I Expert Panel in its deliberations; it will not be a preliminary draft 
of the report to be delivered to FDA in fulfillment of the scope of 
work for the contract task. Upon approval by the Phase I Expert Panel, 
the background document will be available on or before April 12, 1996, 
from LSRO/FASEB (address above). The background document will be on 
display at LSRO/FASEB and the Dockets Management Branch (addresses 
above).
    In Phase II, the Expert Panel will be expanded to eight members. 
The Phase II Expert Panel will conduct a comprehensive discussion of 
the principles and criteria generally agreed upon by the community of 
food safety experts for determining when the traditional safety model 
is appropriate. More specifically, based on the deliberations of the 
Phase II Expert Panel, LSRO/FASEB will organize the scientific concepts 
of food ingredient safety to yield a set of criteria in a report that 
the agency could then consider in evaluating the safety of food 
ingredients. Additionally, based on the discussions of the Phase II 
Expert Panel, the report will identify a ranking and weighting of such 
considerations that the scientific community would agree could be used 
to evaluate whether a new or modified food ingredient should be 
considered safe.
    FDA and LSRO/FASEB are announcing that LSRO/FASEB will hold a 
public meeting on this topic on May 15, 1996. It is anticipated that 
the meeting will last 1 day, depending on the number of requests to 
make oral presentations. Requests to make oral presentations at the 
open meeting must be submitted in writing and received by April 24, 
1996. Participants will be required to submit two copies of the written 
text of oral presentations of scientific data, information, and views 
on or before May 10, 1996, to LSRO/FASEB (address above) and two copies 
to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). The meeting will be 
held in the Chen Auditorium, Lee Bldg., FASEB (address above).
    For individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation, FDA and 
LSRO/FASEB are also inviting submission in writing of scientific data, 
information, and views. Two copies of these materials must be submitted 
on or before May 10, 1996, to both LSRO/FASEB and the Dockets 
Management Branch (addresses above).
    Pursuant to its contract with FDA, LSRO/FASEB will provide the 
agency with a scientific report on the Phase II review and discussions 
on or about July 31, 1997.

    Dated: February 26, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 96-4858 Filed 3-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F