[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67169-67175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1317]
Tentative Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated Oils;
Request for Comments and for Scientific Data and Information
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments and for scientific data and
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Based on new scientific evidence and the findings of expert
scientific panels, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
tentatively determined that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which
are the primary dietary source of industrially-produced trans fatty
acids, or trans fat, are not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for
any use in food based on current scientific evidence establishing the
health risks associated with the consumption of trans fat, and
therefore that PHOs are food additives. Although FDA has not listed the
most commonly used PHOs, they have been used in food for many years
based on self-determinations by industry that such use is GRAS. If
finalized, this would mean that food manufacturers would no longer be
permitted to sell PHOs, either directly or as ingredients in another
food product, without prior FDA approval for use as a food additive.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments and scientific data
and information by January 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments and scientific data and
information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments and
scientific data and information to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All submissions must include the Agency name and
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mical Honigfort, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1278, FAX:
301-436-2972, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
In accordance with the process set out in Sec. 170.38(b)(1) (21
CFR 170.38(b)(1)), we are issuing this document announcing our
tentative determination that PHOs are no longer GRAS under any
condition of use in food and therefore are food additives subject to
section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21
U.S.C. 348). If finalized, this would mean that food manufacturers
would no longer be permitted to sell PHOs, either directly or as
ingredients in another food product, without prior FDA approval for use
as a food additive.
FDA's evaluation of the GRAS status of PHOs is centered on the
trans fatty acid (also referred to as ``trans fat'') component of these
oils. This document addresses PHOs because they are the primary dietary
source of industrially-produced trans fat (Ref. 1). Although all
refined edible oils contain some trans fat as an unintentional
byproduct of their manufacturing process, trans fats are an integral
component of PHOs and are purposely produced in these oils to affect
the properties of the oil and the characteristics of the food to which
they are added.
The current scientific evidence, which is discussed in section IV
of this document, identifies significant health risks caused by the
consumption of trans fat. This evidence includes the opinions of expert
panels and the 2005 recommendation of the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
to limit trans fat consumption as much as possible while consuming a
nutritionally adequate diet, recognizing that trans fat occurs
naturally in meat and dairy products from ruminant animals and that
naturally-occurring trans fat is unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan
diets without significant dietary adjustments that may introduce
undesirable effects (Ref. 2). In addition, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), elimination of PHOs from the food
supply could prevent 10,000 to 20,000 coronary events and 3,000 to
7,000 coronary deaths annually, if the marginal benefits of continuing
to remove trans fats from food items remain constant (Ref. 3). (See
accompanying economic analysis for more information on this estimate.)
Given this evidence, we have tentatively determined that there is no
longer a consensus among qualified scientific experts that PHOs, the
primary dietary source of industrially-produced trans fatty acids, are
safe for human consumption, either directly or as ingredients in other
food products.
II. Background
A. Hydrogenation Process and Trans Fatty Acids
Chemical hydrogenation is the process by which hydrogen atoms are
added to unsaturated sites on the carbon chains of fatty acids, in the
presence of catalysts, thereby reducing the number of double bonds.
``Partial hydrogenation'' describes an incomplete saturation of the
double bonds, in which some double bonds remain but may shift to a
different position along the carbon chain and alter their configuration
from cis to trans. The trans arrangement of hydrogen atoms results in a
relatively straight configuration of the fatty acids and increases the
melting point, shelf life,
[[Page 67170]]
and flavor stability of the hydrogenated oil. Because of these
technical properties, PHOs have been used by the food industry in such
products as margarine, shortening, and baked goods. The hydrogenation
process can be controlled to meet the physical or chemical properties
needed for a specific product application (Ref. 4). If an oil is
allowed to hydrogenate completely, the carbon-carbon double bonds are
mostly eliminated, resulting in a ``fully hydrogenated oil.'' The trans
fatty acid content of PHOs can vary from approximately 10 to 60 percent
of the oil, depending on how the oil is manufactured, with an average
trans fatty acid content of 25 to 45 percent of the oil (Ref. 1).
Changes in the pressure, temperature, amount of agitation in the
reaction vessel, type and concentration of catalyst, reaction time, and
fat source will affect the production of trans fatty acid isomers in
PHOs.
As noted, trans fatty acids are also formed during the production
of non-hydrogenated refined oils (i.e., soybean and cottonseed oils) as
a result of the cis to trans isomerization induced by high temperatures
used during processing, such as deodorization (Ref. 5). The
concentration of trans fatty acids in non-hydrogenated refined oils is
typically below 2 percent (Ref. 6). Low levels (below 2 percent) of
trans fatty acids may also be found in fully hydrogenated oils due to
incomplete hydrogenation (Ref. 7). Theoretically, a fully hydrogenated
oil would be fully saturated and would not contain any trans fatty
acids. However, no hydrogenation process is 100 percent efficient. In
addition, the trans fatty isomer content of an edible oil can be
controlled by blending different oils or through processing of mixed
fatty acids (Ref. 4).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hydrogenation also occurs in the digestive tract of ruminant
animals and results in the formation of some trans isomers in the
fat components of dairy and meat products from these animals. These
isomers usually make up only a small percent (typically around 3
percent) of the total fatty acids of such products (Ref. 5). This
document is limited to PHOs and does not address the trans fat
component of meat and dairy products from ruminant animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The GRAS Standard
Section 409 of the FD&C Act provides that a food additive is unsafe
unless it is used in accordance with certain conditions set forth in
that section. ``Food additive'' is defined by section 201(s) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) as any substance the intended use of which
results or may reasonably be expected to result in its becoming a
component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food, if
such substance is not GRAS.\2\ A substance is GRAS if it is generally
recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and
experience to evaluate its safety, as having been adequately shown
through scientific procedures (or, in the case of a substance used in
food prior to January 1, 1958, through either scientific procedures or
experience based on common use in food) to be safe under the conditions
of its intended use. However, history of use prior to 1958 is not
sufficient to support continued GRAS status if new evidence
demonstrates that there is no longer a consensus that an ingredient is
safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Certain other substances that may become components of food
are also excluded from the statutory definition of food additive,
including pesticide chemicals and their residues, new animal drugs,
color additives, and dietary ingredients in dietary supplements (21
U.S.C. 321(s)(1) through (s)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA has defined safe as ``a reasonable certainty in the minds of
competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the
intended conditions of use'' (21 CFR 170.3(i)), and general recognition
of safety must be based only on the views of qualified experts (21 CFR
170.30(a)). To establish such recognition, there must be a consensus of
expert opinion regarding the safety of the use of the substance. (See,
e.g., United States v. Western Serum Co., Inc., 666 F.2d 335, 338 (9th
Cir. 1982) (citing Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 412 U.S.
609, 629-32 (1973)). Unanimity among experts regarding safety of a
substance is not required. (See, e.g., United States v. Articles of
Drug * * * 5,906 boxes, 745 F.2d 105, 119 n. 22 (1st Cir. 1984); United
States v. Articles of Food and Drug (Coli-Trol 80), 518 F.2d 743, 746
(5th Cir. 1975) (``What is required is not unanimous recognition but
general recognition.'')). However, the existence of a severe conflict
among experts regarding the safety of the use of a substance precludes
a finding of general recognition (See, e.g., Premo Pharmaceutical
Laboratories v. United States, 629 F.2d 795, 803 (2d Cir. 1980)).
Importantly, the GRAS status of a specific use of a particular
substance in food is time-dependent. That is, as new scientific data
and information develop about a substance or the understanding of the
consequences of consumption of a substance evolves, expert opinion
regarding the safety of a substance for a particular use may change
such that there is no longer a consensus that the specific use is safe.
The fact that the status of a substance under section 201(s) of the
FD&C Act may evolve over time is the underlying basis for FDA's
regulation at Sec. 170.38, which provides in part that FDA may, on its
own initiative, propose to determine that a substance is not GRAS. (See
generally 36 FR 12093 (June 25, 1971) (issuance of 21 CFR 121.3, the
predecessor of Sec. 170.38)). Further, as stated previously, history
of the safe use of a substance in food prior to 1958 is not sufficient
to support continued GRAS status if new evidence demonstrates that
there is no longer expert consensus that an ingredient is safe.
As noted previously, under section 201(s) of the FD&C Act, a
substance that is GRAS for a particular use in food is not a food
additive, and may lawfully be utilized for that use without Agency
review and approval. Currently, a GRAS determination is made when the
manufacturer or user of a food substance evaluates the safety of the
substance and the views of qualified experts and concludes that the use
of the substance is GRAS. This approach is commonly referred to as
``GRAS self-determination.'' Substances that have been self-determined
as GRAS are not comprehensively listed or otherwise publicly
identified.
Other substances that are GRAS may be identified in FDA regulations
in one of two ways. Following the passage of the 1958 Food Additives
Amendment, FDA established in its regulations a list of food substances
that, when used as indicated, are considered GRAS. This list (commonly
referred to as the ``GRAS list'') now appears at 21 CFR part 182.
Thereafter, in 1972, we established the GRAS affirmation process
through which we affirmed, through notice and comment rulemaking, the
GRAS status of particular uses of certain substances in food.\3\
Regulations affirming the GRAS status of certain substances appear at
21 CFR parts 184 and 186.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As a general matter, FDA no longer lists GRAS substances in
its regulations because, in April 1997, we proposed to establish a
voluntary notification program for GRAS, which does not involve
rulemaking (62 FR 18938, April 17, 1997). At the time of the
proposal, FDA initiated a pilot of the GRAS notification program,
which continues to function. A firm may voluntarily submit
information on a GRAS self-determination to FDA for review through
the GRAS notification program, but is not required to do so.
\4\ For a more detailed discussion of the history of GRAS, see
62 FR 18938 at 18939 and 18940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Status of PHOs
PHOs, which are the primary dietary source of industrially-produced
trans fat (Ref. 1), have a long history of use as food ingredients. The
partial hydrogenation process was developed in the 1930s and has been
in widespread commercial use since the 1940s. Two common PHOs currently
used by the food industry are partially
[[Page 67171]]
hydrogenated soybean oil and partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil,
neither of which is listed as GRAS in FDA's regulations. However, these
and other commonly used PHOs (e.g., partially hydrogenated coconut oil
and palm oil) have been considered GRAS (through a GRAS self-
determination) by the food industry for use in food at levels
consistent with good manufacturing practice based on a history of use
prior to 1958. We are not aware that either FDA or the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted any explicit prior sanction or
approval for any use of PHOs in food prior to the 1958 Food Additives
Amendment to the FD&C Act.
In contrast, the partially hydrogenated versions of low erucic acid
rapeseed oil (LEAR oil; 21 CFR 184.1555(c)(2)) and menhaden oil (21 CFR
184.1472(b)) are affirmed by regulation as GRAS for use in food.
Partially hydrogenated LEAR oil was affirmed as GRAS for use in food
(50 FR 3745; January 28, 1985) through scientific procedures. Partially
hydrogenated menhaden oil was affirmed as GRAS for use in food (54 FR
38219; September 15, 1989) on the basis that the oil is chemically and
biologically comparable to commonly used partially hydrogenated
vegetable oils such as corn and soybean oils. Partially hydrogenated
LEAR and menhaden oils are not currently widely used by the food
industry.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The non-hydrogenated version of LEAR oil (also known as
canola oil) is widely used in foods, and non-hydrogenated menhaden
oil is currently used in a limited number of products, primarily to
increase the omega-3 fatty acid content of the food. Like other non-
hydrogenated refined oils, non-hydrogenated LEAR and menhaden oils,
which are also affirmed by FDA as GRAS for use in food, are not
significant dietary sources of trans fat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although none of the food standards of identity in FDA's
regulations explicitly refers to PHOs, the nature of some of the
products for which there are standards of identity is such that PHOs
historically have been used in their manufacture in conformance with
those standards (e.g., shortening in bread, rolls, and buns (21 CFR
136.110(c)(5)), French dressing (21 CFR 169.115), mayonnaise (21 CFR
169.140), and margarine (21 CFR 166.110)). However, no food standard of
identity requires the use of PHOs and, therefore, industry's ability to
comply with any standard would not be prevented by a change in the
regulatory status of PHOs.
D. Labeling of Trans Fat
As an initial step to address the negative health effects of trans
fat consumption in the United States, we issued a proposed rule in the
Federal Register of November 17, 1999 (64 FR 62746) entitled ``Food
Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling, Nutrient Content
Claims, and Health Claims'' (the November 1999 proposal), in which we
proposed that trans fat content be provided in nutrition labeling to
help consumers determine how each food product contributes to their
overall dietary intake of trans fat. Our proposal was supported by
findings from intervention and observational studies that evaluated the
evidence that dietary trans fatty acids influence blood lipid levels in
humans and increase their risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) (64 FR
62746 at 62750). In the November 1999 proposal, we discussed research
that showed that diets containing trans fatty acids resulted in
increased serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a major
risk factor for CHD (64 FR at 62746 at 62749 through 62754). In the
Federal Register of July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41434), we issued a final rule
(the July 2003 final rule) amending our nutrition labeling regulations
to require declaration of the trans fatty acid content of food in the
nutrition label of conventional foods and dietary supplements (21 CFR
101.9(c)(2)(ii)). This requirement was effective January 1, 2006.\6\ In
the July 2003 final rule (68 FR 41434 at 41457), the Agency noted that
the IOM/National Academy of Sciences (IOM/NAS) report about trans fat
(Ref. 2) did not make quantitative recommendations for establishing a
Daily Reference Value (DRV) for trans fat. The IOM/NAS report
recommended that the intake of trans fat be as low as possible while
maintaining a nutritionally balanced diet and did not provide a daily
reference intake (DRI) for trans fat or information that the Agency
needs to establish a DRV for nutrition labeling purposes. Therefore, in
the absence of a scientific basis or recommendation for trans fat
consumption by an authoritative body, FDA did not establish a DRV for
trans fat, and therefore, the July 2003 final rule did not require
listing of Percent of Daily Value (% DV) for trans fat on product
labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The regulation requires the declaration of the amount of
trans fat in a product, on a separate line directly below the
statement for saturated fat; the declaration must express the amount
of trans fat as grams per serving to the nearest 0.5 g increment
below 5 g and to the nearest gram increment above 5 g. If a serving
contains less than 0.5 g, the trans fat content may be declared as
zero. The regulation also provides that, in certain circumstances,
the statement ``Not a significant source of trans fat'' may be used
instead of a declaration of trans fat content. The regulation
defines the number of grams of trans fat in a serving as the sum of
all unsaturated fatty acids that contain one or more isolated (i.e.,
nonconjugated) double bonds in a trans configuration. If FDA makes a
final determination that PHOs are not GRAS, no amount of PHOs would
be permitted in food products without prior FDA approval for use as
a food additive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Current Dietary Intake of Trans Fat From PHOs
In the July 2003 final rule, we estimated that mean adult (aged 20
years or more) intake of trans fat from products containing PHOs was
4.6 grams per day (g/d) (2.0 percent of energy based on a 2,000 calorie
diet) (68 FR 41434 at 41470).\7\ We also estimated that total trans fat
intake from products containing PHOs and from animal products
containing trans fat (1.2 g/d) was 5.8 g/d for adults (2.6 percent of
caloric energy). Based on food composition data collected in 2009 and
2010, we updated our intake estimate of trans fat from products
containing PHOs. Our analysis showed that many food products have been
reformulated to eliminate or to substantially reduce the amount of
industrially-produced trans fatty acids (Ref. 8). However, as discussed
further in this section, certain population groups still consume high
levels of trans fatty acids, primarily through consumption of food
products containing PHOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ (4.6 g//d x 9 kcal/g x 100)/2,000 kcal/d = 2.0% of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, we prepared an estimate of the intake of industrially-
produced trans fat using available food consumption data (2003-2006
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)), market
share information, and trans fat levels based on label declaration data
and analytical data for products that were identified as containing
PHOs (Ref. 8). We estimated the 2010 mean trans fat intake for the U.S.
population aged 2 years or more \8\ who consumed one or more of the
processed foods identified as containing PHOs \9\ to be 1.3 grams per
person per day (g/p/d) (0.6 percent of caloric energy). For high-level
consumers (represented by the 90th percentile), we estimated the intake
to be 2.6 g/p/d (1.2 percent of caloric energy) for the U.S. population
aged 2 years or more. Based on this estimate, the mean dietary intake
of industrially-produced trans fat has decreased significantly since
our estimate in the July 2003 final rule.
[[Page 67172]]
Additionally, scientists at the CDC recently studied the change in
levels of four major trans fatty acids in the blood of U.S. non-
Hispanic white adults from 2000 to 2009, and reported a 58 percent
average decrease during that timeframe (Ref. 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ While we did not calculate a mean intake for ages 20 years
or more, based on the similarity in the intakes calculated for
children aged 2-5 years, teenage boys, and persons aged 2 years or
more (Ref. 8), we believe there would not be a significant
difference between the intake estimated for persons ages 2 years or
more and that for persons ages 20 years or more.
\9\ The current estimate indicated that approximately 100
percent of the population consumed one or more of the foods under
consideration. This is due to the wide variety of foods that contain
trans fat from PHOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data that we collected show that many foods (e.g., frozen
potato products, most frozen breaded products) have been reformulated
to remove PHOs. However, a number of foods made with PHOs remain on the
market. These products fall into one of two categories: Foods for which
consumers have alternatives containing lower levels of trans fat (e.g.,
cookies, baked goods, microwave popcorn, frozen pizza, frozen pies,
shortening) and foods for which consumers have limited or no choice of
an alternative containing a lower level of trans fat (e.g., ready-to-
use frostings, stick margarine).
In 2010, we also prepared an estimate for a high-intake scenario by
assuming that trans fat was present at the highest level observed for
all foods within a particular food category based on label surveys or
analytical data. For this scenario, we estimated the mean intake to be
2.7 g/p/d (1.2 percent of energy) and the 90th percentile intake to be
5.4 g/p/d (2.4 percent of energy) for the U.S. population aged 2 years
or more.
In 2012, using label survey data, we updated the 2010 intake
estimate of trans fats from PHOs for those food categories that were
identified as major contributors to the dietary intake of trans fat, as
well as for those categories where we have noted progress in
reformulation. For this most recent estimate, we calculated the mean
intake to be 1.0 g/p/d (0.5 percent of energy) and the 90th percentile
intake to be 2.0 g/p/d (1.0 percent of energy) for the U.S. population
aged 2 years or more (Ref. 10). We also prepared an estimate for a
high-intake scenario by assuming that trans fat was present at the
highest level observed for all foods within a particular food category
based on the label survey. For this scenario, we estimated the mean
intake to be 2.1 g/p/d (1.0 percent of energy) and the 90th percentile
intake to be 4.2 g/p/d (1.9 percent of energy) for the U.S. population
aged 2 years or more.
We do not consider this to be a significant change in the overall
dietary intake of trans fat since 2010. However, it suggests a
continued downward trend in the dietary intake of trans fat.
Specifically, there was a decrease observed in the intake of trans fat
in the refrigerated dough, savory snacks, and frozen pizza categories,
consistent with the lower levels of trans fat observed in our label
survey.
Although trans fat intake has decreased overall since our 2003
trans fat intake estimate, individuals with certain dietary habits may
still consume high levels of trans fat from certain brands or certain
types of food products (e.g., refrigerated biscuits, ready-to-use
frostings, certain brands of frozen pizzas, and certain brands of
microwave popcorn), which could contain several grams trans fat per
serving. As noted previously, for those consumers who consistently
choose these products, the daily intake of added trans fat is
approximately twice as high as that for the consumer who does not
choose only the foods containing the highest levels of trans fat within
a particular category (2.1 g/p/d vs. 1.0 g/p/d).
IV. Safety
In the November 1999 proposed rule, we concluded that dietary trans
fatty acids have adverse effects on blood cholesterol measures that are
predictive of CHD risk, specifically LDL-C levels (64 FR 62746 at
62754). We took final action in the July 2003 final rule based on our
evaluation of comments received and on scientific evidence
demonstrating that the consumption of trans fatty acids increases LDL-
C, one of the major risk factors for CHD. The July 2003 final rule
cited authoritative reports that recommended limiting intake of trans
fat to reduce CHD risk, such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
2000 (Ref. 11), the American Heart Association Guidelines (Ref. 12),
the 2002 IOM/NAS report (Ref. 2), as well as additional studies that
had been published since the November 1999 proposal (68 FR 41434 at
41444). In particular, the 2002 IOM/NAS report recognized the positive
linear trend between trans fat intake, LDL-C concentration, and heart
disease, concluded that ``trans fatty acids are not essential and
provide no known benefit to human health,'' and recommended that
``trans fatty acid consumption be kept as low as possible while
consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.'' The report did not recommend
an upper limit for trans fat because it concluded that any incremental
increase in trans fat consumption increases the risk of CHD.
FDA has summarized findings reported in the literature since the
publication of the July 2003 final rule (Refs. 13, 14). Since 2003,
both controlled trials and observational human studies published on
trans fatty acid consumption have consistently confirmed the adverse
effects of trans fatty acid consumption on intermediary risk factors
(e.g., serum lipoproteins) and the increased risk of CHD (Ref. 13).
Expert review panels from the IOM/NAS in 2005 (Ref. 2), the American
Heart Association (Refs. 15, 16), the American Dietetic Association
(Ref. 17), the World Health Organization (Ref. 18), the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee (Refs. 19, 20), and the FDA Food Advisory
Committee Nutrition Subcommittee (Ref. 21) agree that trans fat-
mediated changes in lipid metabolism, pro-inflammatory effects, and
endothelial dysfunction lead to dose-dependent increases in CHD events
in humans. These expert panels all concluded that there is no threshold
intake level for industrially-produced trans fat that would not
increase an individual's risk of CHD, or adverse effects on risk
factors for CHD. Moreover, the panels also agree that trans fatty acids
have a stronger effect on the risk of CHD than saturated fatty acids.
This significant recent evidence demonstrating the increased risk
of CHD from consumption of any amount of trans fat means that
consumption of PHOs, the primary dietary source of trans fat, also
leads to increased LDL-C levels and an increased risk of CHD. These
demonstrated effects support a determination that the consumption of
PHOs could be harmful (i.e., increased risk for CHD) under any
condition of use in food. Accordingly, we tentatively determine that
this evidence erodes any basis to support the GRAS status of these
oils, and therefore that there is no longer a consensus among qualified
scientific experts that PHOs, the primary dietary source of
industrially-produced trans fatty acids, are safe under any condition
of use in food.
We note that, in addition to an increased risk of CHD, trans fat
consumption (and, accordingly, consumption of food products containing
PHOs) has also been connected to a number of other adverse effects on
health. Some studies suggest that trans fat consumption may worsen
insulin resistance, especially in those who are predisposed to the
condition (e.g., preexisting insulin resistance, greater adiposity, or
lower physical activity levels) (Refs. 22, 23). Trans fat may also
increase diabetes risk (Refs. 22-26) although this association requires
further confirmation. In addition, there is some evidence that fetuses
and breastfeeding infants of mothers who regularly consume trans fat
may be at higher risk for impaired growth (which may be due to
inhibition of the synthesis of essential polyunsaturated fatty acids
that are needed for their growth and development) (Refs. 27-31).
Scientific evidence also shows that, in addition to
[[Page 67173]]
increasing LDL-C, trans fat intake lowers serum high-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), a protective form of serum cholesterol
(Refs. 32-39).
V. Other Activities Relating to PHO Consumption
Over the past 5 years, several municipalities, states, and other
countries have taken action to reduce the use of PHOs in food. While
these actions pertain generally to all products containing trans fat,
because PHOs are the primary dietary source of trans fat, their
immediate effect is primarily on food products containing PHOs. For
example, the Danish government passed legislation in 2003 that
restricted the use of industrially-produced trans fat to a maximum of 2
percent of fats and oils used in all processed food products. These
required limitations on dietary trans fat have nearly eliminated trans
fat from commercial sources such that industrially-produced trans fat
is no longer a significant source of intake of trans fat in Denmark
(Refs. 40-42). Also, in 2007, Canada set voluntary trans fat reduction
targets of no more than 2 percent trans fat in the fat content of
vegetable oils and spreadable margarine and no more than 5 percent in
all other foods (Ref. 43). Health Canada monitored the industry's
actions by analyzing products and reviewing nutrition labels. Canada's
monitoring data showed that nutrition labeling regulations are an
effective motivator for industry and that many manufacturers reduced
the trans fat content of foods to meet the voluntary limit of 5 percent
total fat as trans fat, especially because the monitoring data were
posted on Health Canada's Web site. However, Health Canada noted that
some sectors (i.e., bakery products, desserts, and cookies) face
challenges in reducing the trans fat content of their products (Ref.
44).
In the United States, some jurisdictions such as the State of
California (California Health and Safety Code, Section 114377), New
York City (New York City Health Code, Section 81.08), the City of
Baltimore (Baltimore City Health Code Section 6-507), and Montgomery
County, MD (County Council for Montgomery County Maryland, Resolution
No. 16-134, 2007) have imposed restrictions on the use of trans fat
ingredients in food service establishments. Generally, these
regulations do not permit food service establishments to sell or
distribute foods, and in some cases, use ingredients, containing
greater than 0.5 g trans fat per serving. In New York City, by 2008 an
estimated 98 percent of restaurants were not using ingredients
containing industrially-produced trans fat, compared with 50 percent in
2005 (Ref. 45).
We have also received two citizen petitions regarding the safety of
PHOs. In 2004, FDA received a citizen petition from the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) requesting that we revoke the
GRAS status of PHOs, and consequently declare that all of these oils
are food additives. The petition also asks FDA to revoke the safe
conditions of use for partially hydrogenated products that are
currently considered food additives,\10\ to prohibit the use of
partially hydrogenated vegetable oils that are prior sanctioned (FDA is
not aware of any), and to initiate a program to encourage manufacturers
and restaurants to switch to more healthy oils. The petition excluded
trans fat that occurs naturally in meat from ruminant animals and dairy
fats, and that forms during the production of non-hydrogenated oils. It
also does not include fully hydrogenated oils, which contain negligible
amounts of trans fat, and PHOs that may be produced by new technologies
that result in negligible amounts of trans fat in the final product.
CSPI's petition states that trans fat promotes CHD by increasing LDL-C
and also by lowering HDL-C, and therefore has greater adverse effects
on serum lipids (and possibly CHD) than saturated fats. CSPI also
states that, beyond its adverse effects on serum lipids, trans fat may
promote heart disease in additional ways. Based on these findings, CSPI
asserts that PHOs can no longer be considered GRAS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The petition from CSPI provided, as an example, partially
hydrogenated methyl ester of rosin, which is approved as a food
additive for use as a synthetic flavoring substance (32 FR 7946,
June 2, 1967; 21 CFR 172.515) and as a masticatory substance in
chewing gum base (29 FR 13894, October 8, 1964; 21 CFR 172.615).
Partially hydrogenated methyl ester of rosin is not a PHO;
accordingly, this document does not address this substance.
\11\ The CSPI petition may be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov and is identified as Docket No. FDA-2004-P-0279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, we received a citizen petition from Dr. Fred Kummerow
requesting that we ban partially hydrogenated fat from the American
diet. Dr. Kummerow cited studies linking the intake of industrially-
produced trans fatty acids to the prevalence of CHD in the United
States. The petition also asserts that trans fat may be passed to
infants via breast milk and that the daily intake of trans fat related
to the health of children has been ignored since children do not
exhibit overt heart disease. Dr. Kummerow further states that
inflammation in the arteries is believed to be a risk factor in CHD and
studies have shown that trans fatty acids elicit an inflammatory
response.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The petition from Dr. Kummerow may be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov and is identified as Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Tentative Determination
As discussed previously, for a substance to be GRAS, there must be
a consensus among qualified experts that the substance is safe under
the intended conditions of use. In accordance with the process in FDA's
regulations in Sec. 170.38, the Agency on its own initiative or on the
petition of any interested person, under 21 CFR part 10, may publish a
notice in the Federal Register determining that a substance is not GRAS
and is a food additive subject to section 409 of the FD&C Act. In
accordance with this process, we will normally allow a period of 60
days during which any interested person may file comments, and we will
evaluate all comments received (Sec. 170.38(b)). If we conclude that
there is a lack of convincing evidence that the substance is GRAS or is
otherwise exempt from the definition of a food additive in section
201(s) of the FD&C Act, we will publish a notice thereof in the Federal
Register.
Based on current scientific evidence discussed in section IV of
this document regarding the health risks associated with the
consumption of trans fat, opinions of expert panels, as well as the
IOM's recommendation to limit trans fat consumption as much as
possible, we have tentatively determined that there is not a consensus
that PHOs, the primary dietary source of industrially-produced trans
fatty acids, are safe for use in food. The fact that a substance was
commonly used in food prior to 1958 is not sufficient to support
continued GRAS status if there is no longer a scientific consensus that
the substance is safe for the intended use in food.
FDA has prepared a memorandum attempting to estimate the potential
costs and benefits associated with removing PHOs from the food supply
(Ref. 46). Where possible we have used publicly available information
to make these estimates; however, in many cases we have very limited
data to support our rough estimates. We estimate the initial costs of
removing PHOs from the food supply to be about $8 billion, although
those costs may not be borne all in one year if FDA provides a multi-
year compliance period; we seek comment on that idea as part of this
notice. We estimate the 20-year net present value of costs to be
between $12 and $14 billion, where the upper and lower estimates are
calculated at 3 and
[[Page 67174]]
7 percent discount rates. Using the same method, we estimate benefits
between $117 and $242 billion. Our memorandum is part of the
administrative record and can be found on http://www.regulations.gov as
Reference 46 to this document. As discussed in the memorandum, our
analysis focused on processed foods and food prepared at home. There
may, however, be additional costs to small businesses associated with
removing PHOs from food. Our intent is not to create an undue burden on
these entities. Therefore, we are specifically requesting comment on
the costs to small businesses and any special considerations that might
be made in order to minimize the burden on these entities. We request
comment on what types of special considerations for small business
would be possible if FDA makes a final determination that PHOs are not
GRAS.
VII. Request for Comments and for Scientific Data and Information
We are seeking comments and additional scientific data and
information related to this action and, in particular, we request
comment on the following:
1. Should FDA finalize its tentative determination that PHOs are no
longer GRAS?
2. Are there data to support other possible approaches to
addressing the use of PHOs in food, such as by setting a specification
for trans fat levels in food?
3. How long would it take producers to reformulate food products to
eliminate PHOs from the food supply? Are there likely to be differences
in reformulation time for certain foods or for certain types of
businesses?
4. If FDA makes a final determination that PHOs are not GRAS and
does not otherwise authorize their use in food, FDA intends to provide
for a compliance date that would be adequate for producers to
reformulate any products as necessary and that would minimize market
disruption. We welcome comments on what would be an adequate time
period for compliance.
5. Are there any special considerations that could be made to
reduce the burden on small businesses that would result from removal of
PHOs from foods, such as additional time for reformulation? Would those
considerations be consistent with a final determination that PHOs are
not GRAS?
6. Are there other challenges regarding the removal of PHOs from
foods? Are there products that may not be able to be reformulated? If
so, what sorts of products and what challenges are faced?
7. Is there any knowledge of an applicable prior sanction for the
use of PHOs in food?
We anticipate that some interested persons may wish to provide FDA
with certain comments, research, data, and information that they
consider to be trade secret or confidential commercial information
(CCI) that would be exempt under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). You may claim information that you
submit to FDA as CCI or trade secret by clearly marking both the
document and the specific information as ``confidential.'' Information
so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act and FDA's disclosure regulations (21 CFR part 20).
For electronic submissions to http://www.regulations.gov indicate in
the ``comments'' box of the appropriate docket that your submission
contains confidential information. You must also submit a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as confidential
for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information
not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the
official record without prior notice.
VIII. Comments
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments and
scientific data and information to http://www.regulations.gov or
written comments and scientific data and information to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one
set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen
in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
IX. References
We have placed the following references on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). You may see them between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has verified the Web site
addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the
Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.
1. Tarrago-Trani, M., K. M. Philips, L. E. Lemar, et al.,''New and
Existing Oils and Fats Used in Products With Reduced Trans-Fatty
Acid Content,'' Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
106:867-877, 2006.
2. IOM/NAS, ``Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy Carbohydrate,
Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients),''
chapters 8 and 11, National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2002/
2005 (Internet address: http://www.nap.edu).
3. Dietz, W. H. and K. S. Scanlon, ``Eliminating the Use of
Partially Hydrogenated Oil in Food Production and Preparation,''
Journal of the American Medical Association, 108: 143-144, 2012.
4. Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Food Fats and Oils, 9th
ed., Washington DC, p. 9, 2006 (Internet address: http://www.iseo.org/httpdocs/Publications/FoodFatsOils2006.pdf).
5. Kodali, D. R. and G. R. List, Eds., Trans Fats Alternatives, AOCS
Press, Champaign, IL, pp. 4, 2005.
6. Kodali, D. R. and G. R. List, Eds., Trans Fats Alternatives, AOCS
Press, Champaign, IL, p. 34-35, 2005.
7. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Nutrition
Database for Standard Reference, Release 23, 2010 (Internet address:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964).
8. Doell, D., D. Folmer, H. Lee, et al., ``Updated Estimate of Trans
Fat Intake by the U.S. Population,'' Food Additives and
Contaminants: Part A: Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and
Risk Assessment, 29: 861-874, 2012.
9. Vesper, H.W., H.C. Kulper, L.B. Mirel, et al., ``Research Letter:
Levels of Plasma trans-Fatty Acids in Non-Hispanic White Adults in
the United States in 2000 and 2009,'' Journal of the American
Medical Association, 307: 562-563, 2012.
10. Memorandum from D. Doell and M. Honigfort to Division of
Petition Review, August 26, 2013.
11. USDA and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, 2000, 5th ed., pp. 28-30, Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, January 2000.
12. Krauss, R.M., R.H. Eckel, B. Howard, et al., ``American Heart
Association Guidelines, Revision 2000: A Statement for Healthcare
Professionals from the Nutrition Committee of the American Heart
Association,'' Circulation, 102: 2296-2311, 2000.
13. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, August 10, 2005.
14. Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, August 19, 2010.
15. American Heart Association, http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp.
16. Eckel, R.H., S. Borra, A.H. Lichtenstein, et al.,
``Understanding the Complexity of Trans Fatty Acid Reduction in the
American Diet,'' Circulation, 115:2231-2246, 2007.
17. Kris-Etherton, P. M., S. Innis, ``Position of the American
Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Dietary Fatty
Acids,'' Journal of the American Dietetic
[[Page 67175]]
Association, pp. 1599-1611, 2007.
18. World Health Organization, ``Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention
of Chronic Disease,'' Technical Series Report 916, pp. 81-85,
Geneva, 2003.
19. USDA and HHS, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005, 6th ed.,
pp. 29 through 34, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
January 2005.
20. USDA and HHS, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th ed.,
pp. 24-27, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December
2010.
21. HHS/FDA/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Advisory
Committee/Nutrition Subcommittee Meeting, Total Fat and Trans Fat,
April 27-28, 2004.
22. Lefevre, M., J. C. Lovejoy, S. R. Smith, J. P. DeLany, et al.,
``Comparison of the Acute Response to Meals Enriched With cis- or
trans-Fatty Acids on Glucose and Lipids in Overweight Individuals
With Differing FABP2 Genotypes,'' Metabolism, 54:1652-1658, 2005.
23. Micha, R., D. Mozaffarian, ``Trans Fatty Acids: Effects on
Cardiometabolic Health and Implications for Policy,''
Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, 79:147-152,
2008.
24. Teegala, S. M., W. C. Willett, D. Mozaffarian, ``Consumption and
Health Effects of Trans Fatty Acids: A Review,'' Journal of AOAC
International, 92:1250-1257, 2009.
25. Riserus, U., ``Trans Fatty Acids and Insulin Resistance,''
Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7:37-39, 2006.
26. Kavanagh, K., K. L. Jones, J. Sawyer, K. Kelley, et al., ``Trans
Fat Diet Increases Abdominal Obesity Changes in Insulin Sensitivity
in Monkeys,'' Obesity, 15:1675-1684, 2007.
27. Morrison, J. A., C. J. Glueck, P. Wang, ``Dietary Trans Fatty
Acid Intake is Associated with Increased Fetal Loss,'' Fertility and
Sterility, 90:385-390, 2008.
28. Van Eijsden, M., G. Hornstra, M. F. van der Waal, T. G. M.
Vrijkotte, et al., ``Maternal n-3, n-6, and Trans Fatty Acid Profile
Early in Pregnancy and Term Birth Weight: A Prospective Cohort
Study,'' The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87:887-895,
2008.
29. Innis, S., ``Fatty Acids and Early Human Development,'' Early
Human Development, 83:761-766, 2007.
30. Hornstra, G., M. van Eijsden, C. Dirix, G. Bonsel, ``Trans Fatty
Acids and Birth Outcome: Some First Results of the MEFAB and ABCD
Cohorts,'' Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7:21-23, 2006.
31. Innis, S. ``Trans Fatty Intakes During Pregnancy, Infancy and
Early Childhood,'' Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7:17-20, 2006.
32. Brouwer, I. A., A. J. Wanders, M. B. Katan, ``Effect of Animal
and Industrial Trans Fatty Acids on HDL and LDL Cholesterol Levels
in Humans--A Quantitative Review,'' PLoS One, 5(3):e9434, 2010.
33. Mozaffarian, D., R. Clarke, ``Quantitative Effects on
Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Coronary Heart Disease Risk of
Replacing Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils With Other Fats and
Oils,'' European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63:S22-S33, 2009.
34. Chardigny, J.-M., F. Destaillats, C. Malpuech-Brugere, J. Molin,
et al., ``Do Trans Fatty Acids From Industrially Produced Sources
and From Natural Sources Have the Same Effect on Cardiovascular
Disease Risk Factors in Healthy Subjects? Results of the Trans Fatty
Acids Collaboration (TRANSFACT) Study,'' The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 87:558-566, 2008.
35. Mensink, R. P., P. L. Zock, A. D. Kester, et al., ``Effects of
Dietary Fatty Acids and Carbohydrates on the Ratio of Serum Total to
HDL Cholesterol and on Serum Lipids and Apolipoproteins: A Meta-
Analysis of 60 Controlled Trials,'' The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 77:1146-55, 2003.
36. Ascherio, A., ``Trans Fatty Acids and Blood Lipids,''
Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7:25-27, 2006.
37. Mozaffarian, D., M. B., Katan, A. Asherio, M. J. Stampfer, et
al., ``Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease,'' The New
England Journal of Medicine, 354:1601-1613, 2006.
38. Denke, M. A., ``Dietary Fats, Fatty Acids, and Their Effects on
Lipoproteins,'' Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 8:466-471, 2006.
39. Vega-Lopez, S., L. M. Ausman, S. M. Jalbert, A. T. Erkilla, et
al., ``Palm and Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oils Adversely Alter
Lipoprotein Profiles Compared with Soybean and Canola Oils in
Moderately Hyperlipidemic Subjects,'' The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 84:54-62, 2006.
40. Leth, T., H. G. Jensen, A. A. Mikkelsen, A. Bysted, ``The Effect
of the Regulation on Trans Fatty Acid Content in Danish Food,''
Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7(2):53-56, 2006.
41. Stender, S., J. Dyerberg, A. Bysted, T. Leth, et al., ``A Trans
World Journey,'' Atherosclerosis Supplements, 7:47-52, 2006.
42. Bysted A., A. E. Mikkelsen, T. Leth, ``Substitution of Trans
Fatty Acids in Foods on the Danish Market,'' European Journal of
Lipid Science and Technology, 111:574-583, 2009.
43. Health Canada, ``Trans Fat'' (Internet address: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/index-eng.php).
44. Health Canada, ``Fourth Set of Monitoring Data--Trans Fat
Monitoring Program'' (Internet address: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tfa-age_four-data_quatr-donn-eng.php).
45. Angell, S. Y., L. D. Silver, G. P. Goldstein, C. M. Johnson, et
al., ``Cholesterol Control Beyond the Clinic: New York City's Trans
Fat Restriction,'' Annals of Internal Medicine, 151:129-134, 2009.
46. Memorandum from R. Bruns to M. Honigfort, November 5, 2013.
Dated: November 5, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-26854 Filed 11-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P