In an article published August 15, 2013 on the industry news site Food Navigator USA, toxicologist Claire Kruger of Spherix Consulting asserts that the studies by Pew Trusts scientists could not link the faulty food additive regulatory system to a particular instance of adverse effects of a food additive (previously reported on by the FPF). She is supported by John Endres, chief scientists of the consulting firm American Institute for Biosocial and Medical Research (AIBMR) Life Sciences, who adds that if a food additive showed adverse effects the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would respond adequately. Kruger argues that Neltner and colleagues did not discriminate between different food additives and their data requirements. According to Kruger, the toxicological testing of certain substances would be precluded by scientific process and judgment. She states that these substances include compounds evaluated by the Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS), substances with exposures below the threshold of regulation of 1.5 µg/person/day, substances with cumulative exposure sufficiently low enough to only require minimal testing and substances for which human data can be used because they have already been consumed previously. Further, Kruger points out that the Pew Trusts scientists’ analysis did not include toxicological data held by industry.
In their study published August 14, 2013 in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Reproductive Toxicology, Neltner and colleagues had found that 71 percent of food additives currently on the market had not undergone in vivo toxicological testing for determining their safety.
FPF article “Safety of food additives questioned”
FPF article “GRAS: Financial conflicts of interest ubiquitous”