5 ms·

>A compound is considered safe (by the Food and Drug Administration) until proven otherwise. In contrast, in Europe, there is REACH - http://en.wikipedia.org/

by iSnow 12y ago

>A compound is considered safe (by the Food and Drug Administration) until proven otherwise. In contrast, in Europe, there is REACH - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration,_Evaluation,_Authorisation_and_Restriction_of_Chemicals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration,_Evaluation,_Autho... - http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/reach/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/reach/index... - http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach) "REACH places the burden of proof on companies. To comply with the regulation, companies must identify and manage the risks linked to the substances they manufacture and market in the EU. They have to demonstrate to ECHA how the substance can be safely used, and they must communicate the risk management measures to the users." Chemical companies in Europe of course are pushing for TTIP, to get rid of REACH.

andrewla 12y ago
Practically speaking, in this case, does this work better? Did the Eurozone cause risks associated with BPA and BPS to be identified faster, or prevent them from being used in consumer products?
debacle 12y ago
What does REACH say about BPA and BPS?
cbd1984 12y ago
> A compound is considered safe (by the Food and Drug Administration) until proven otherwise. This is simply false. If it were true, getting FDA approval for a new drug would be trivial: Just release it, and hope nobody dies.
- checker 12y ago
  I know that the FDA regulates prescription medication in that manner, but I don't think it has the same reach over things like food packaging, water bottles, dietary supplements, etc.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    The article is wrong: > Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive. http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/default.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/de... The point is, GRAS does not automatically apply. Further: > (d) Substances that under conditions of good manufacturing practice may be safely used as components of articles that contact food include the following, subject to any prescribed limitations: > (1) Substances generally recognized as safe in or on food. > (2) Substances generally recognized as safe for their intended use in food packaging. > (3) Substances used in accordance with a prior sanction or approval. > (4) Substances permitted for use by regulations in this part and parts 175, 176, 177, 178 and § 179.45 of this chapter. > (5) Food contact substances used in accordance with an effective premarket notification for a food contact substance (FCN) submitted under section 409(h) of the act. [42 FR 14534, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 67 FR 35731, May 21, 2002] http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/174.5 http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/174.5 Again, being GRAS is not automatic.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jeffdavis 12y ago
Isn't it kind of hard to prove a negative? It's kind of like trying to assure yourself that complex software has zero bugs by black-box testing it.

by iSnow 12y ago

andrewla 12y ago

Practically speaking, in this case, does this work better? Did the Eurozone cause risks associated with BPA and BPS to be identified faster, or prevent them from being used in consumer products?

debacle 12y ago

What does REACH say about BPA and BPS?

cbd1984 12y ago

> A compound is considered safe (by the Food and Drug Administration) until proven otherwise. This is simply false. If it were true, getting FDA approval for a new drug would be trivial: Just release it, and hope nobody dies.

checker 12y ago
I know that the FDA regulates prescription medication in that manner, but I don't think it has the same reach over things like food packaging, water bottles, dietary supplements, etc.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  The article is wrong: > Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive. http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/default.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/de... The point is, GRAS does not automatically apply. Further: > (d) Substances that under conditions of good manufacturing practice may be safely used as components of articles that contact food include the following, subject to any prescribed limitations: > (1) Substances generally recognized as safe in or on food. > (2) Substances generally recognized as safe for their intended use in food packaging. > (3) Substances used in accordance with a prior sanction or approval. > (4) Substances permitted for use by regulations in this part and parts 175, 176, 177, 178 and § 179.45 of this chapter. > (5) Food contact substances used in accordance with an effective premarket notification for a food contact substance (FCN) submitted under section 409(h) of the act. [42 FR 14534, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 67 FR 35731, May 21, 2002] http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/174.5 http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/174.5 Again, being GRAS is not automatic.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jeffdavis 12y ago

Isn't it kind of hard to prove a negative? It's kind of like trying to assure yourself that complex software has zero bugs by black-box testing it.