The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Food Safety

fb is bell set

in funding for this program has been provided by the station and other public television stations and by grants from exxon corporation allied chemical corporation and the corporation for public broadcasting he's beaming that in and a panel of the national academy of sciences recommended today

that food safety laws big chain so that substances like saccharin could be evaluated both for their benefits and their possible connection to cancer under present law and they delayed the amendment passed in nineteen fifty eight food additives found to cause cancer in animals must be banned by the food and drug administration in nineteen seventy seven saccharin was found to cause cancer and white and male white rats and that's under the law had to be banned but congress voted against banning the popular sweetener for eighteen months and called for the study released today it suggests that the law be changed so that the food and drug administration could classify substances is posing a high medium or low risk foods containing the substances could then be sold with warning labels describing the risk and letting the public decide whether to take it in other words buyer beware tonight weighing the risks and benefits of food additives robin today's report is the work of thirty seven people medical doctors epidemiologist biologist public policy experts and attorneys

they were foreigners a special committee under the national academy of sciences' institute of medicine the chairman is dr frederick robbins a noble laureate and madison hughes dean of the case western reserve school of medicine in cleveland ohio dr almond your fork to beat them to get unstuck here for a moment back to europe pork characterizes present food safety laws as complicated and flexible and inconsistent in practical terms what have been the negative effect of this is that i think they are one thing very few people understand it which is lead to confusion and i think they at agency has had to deal with things with out being overtaken the lockout of the various aspects which might be important and i think the second problem as an example as they as the toll of feckless than they too restrictive atmosphere when it comes to food safety and additives or to relax in atmosphere i hear perhaps a mixture of

golf but perhaps more restrictive in general and lax right now your major recommendation for change calls for setting a a three tier risk standard how that works wheaton yeah the various substances be categorized high risk medium risk for us and then there would be those where there's no question which probably be the majority this would be determined on the basis of oh i return evidence any evidence of man which we often don't have don't forget we're talking about things online cancer in half inside mercury poisoning in song where we often do have more evidence and man and it's evident cancer and one would start with the question of the risk that you're taking something that was high risk would

be something which has a irreversible damage very severe fact perhaps might affect a lot of people it's not correct that we suggest that anything would only be controlling the basis of information public because we suggest that the high risk would usually be banned and that would be a discussion i was not on the basis of love other generation could really use under probably under very strict circumstances a high risk substance the intermediate group would be the ones who have the most options the glorious present brother little problem and it would require perhaps some information like if there is an allergen whether something cause is an allergy to look certain number of people information at that could occur and if you are susceptible don't take it's something that

simple formality the other side of the health of the balance they're witches benefit i would be one hears testimony or recommended system with the pope and oakland raiders ministration also have to consider that yes that would be part of their final conclusion on redskins railcar it turn to their final dissenting was always a risk and then what you do about it is modified by a variety of planes benefit as it is really is very mark benefit is there a substitute obviously there's a substitute you know perfectly acceptable one and has no worse than you know a procedure and where a fact we've outlined a sort of a decision tree that you could follow and in assessing these things were certainly not suggesting that everything that to a high risk substances be released indiscriminately and ira fact there are a lot of high risk substances act of your questions so first of all on the question of the discretion that you

recommend discretionary car that you recommend a given to the fda why you want why do you think that's a good thing if it's a combination of things one we feel it we need to be able to use a wider variety of measures to inform the public and to restrict or modify use suddenly we think that it's a prayer for more have a responsible agency making these decisions and i have too many up and cantor's making general policy decisions and revealing rather than having congress making decisions about specific substance and effect of course your recommendations were eliminated the line in what it was that a layman would essentially become inoperative would be no longer necessary i climb it i'm looking to separate you know i read was the executive summary of the report about exactly what the fine in your

committee was on second and you clear that opened in simple terms that well first zachary is clearly does cause cancer in rats this means that it happens or an animal's this means it has to be considered as a potential cause of cancer in men the evidence and man is inconclusive we feel at the laboratory evidence and what they really do have a man suggest that it is not a highly potent that is a very powerful cause of cancer and that but we also see greatest consumption something over half of all factory consumed is consumed in soft drinks which are widely used by children and women of childbearing age which is the area that if there is a risk you would

be most concern like its wrath five of the thirty seven national academy panelist disagreed with the majority of recommendations and signed an idea unions one of them was to calling campbell professor of nutritional biochemistry of cornell university newlyweds well first off i want to say that these are my own partial visit or to be so presumptive to walk on top of that for the entire group because they really haven't had an opportunity to discuss this with infants or not but i agree with the thrust of the report there is a lot of constructive top suggestions in the report the degree that that deals with those suggesting that there should be more flexibility and more uniformity and standardization of the of the present laws and there is one part or one thrust of the report though that i that i am quite concerned about and that is the they used to which these risk categories will be made it i think it's a good idea to to develop

with categories for the purpose of characterizing resources and regulatory agency on so that certainly interagency can obviously deal with the most important problems for sin and therefore rely on the other hand what concerns me as the the us at the implication in the report that these risk categories may be a sign to specific products and there would be specific logos information provided to the public to indicate what those categories really are and i'm concerned i'm concerned that there are quite a number of products might be so labeled first off a second later that would of course give rise to consume out of confusion i think on the part of the public along but even more importantly than that i think that science is not at that stage today to be able to quantitative on substances in terms of their risky sufficiently well enough to say whether they're a high risk intermediate risk or arrest

is just was simply not that says there's too many factors for example that affect the susceptibility of different individuals under different varmints and with different kinds of races that whereas in one situation as houses might be categorized as a high risk situation of course can be a somewhat tomorrow five percent can i ask you this do you think the delay any amendment should be kept in place well if this report are in essence where i thought that i might agree with a terminal in a doctor a robert issues that in innocents it would become inoperative however on the other hand i think the thrust of the millennium and then in the sense that it has a stop sign that says thou shalt not and substances with these kinds of properties unlike the thrust of that of that particular legislation and i think that legislation as such or similar legislation should be basically kept in place is your position essentially sense that we that we can't be absolutely sure we should play absolutely safe

as it is that is that too simple an expression of larger her position as well probably the best answered by counting on a word safety they're there really is nothing that is absolutely safe i think we can only estimate was with banning substances that have been found to cause cancer in animals so as to prevent human beings from ingesting them would be buying incentive for that not for us as far as those substances i think those subsidies that are directly added should be prevented from being added if they have been demonstrated to be carcinogenic and that is of course playing absolute safety and saccharin as a cause celeb or which inspired this study do you believe that they are the power was swayed by the widespread public skepticism about the validity of animal tests not all i certainly in my in my case i wasn't and i know from what i could detect on the part of the committee and i don't think that there was any evidence of that whatsoever then there are open minded group of people

who were considered all the facts we spent a lot of hours talking about these sorts of things and if that were to be the case i think it will not much evidence dna evidence of what about commercial considerations and economic loss in the industries that produce these things where those factors considered now carol we were really limited today and so far the discussions were concerned i think to questions about the health risks and benefits of course on i don't think that that was a factor in five the federal agency most affected by all this of course is the food and drug administration donald kennedy is the fda commissioner for start the committee do you agree that the current food safety laws are complicated and flexible and inconsistent complicated surely any any statute gold has as a lot of a lot of complexity a difficult understand surely are inflexible in places on and on but that does not

lead one necessarily to the conclusion that it needs wholesale replacement if the inconsistency is partly inconsistency that congress judged to be necessary because different people with respect to different kinds of risks are differently placed in a lot of the inconsistency is or apparent inconsistency thin in our present law really relate to some prior congressional understandings about how and under what circumstances the government should should intercede in the private behavior of citizens and their own interest to fight what you think of the committee's proposed remedy i think the remedy is served although its imaginative i think the academy has really done for the congress what the congress asked you to do which is to open up the public debate about food safety policy it would've been very difficult to do that simply by chewing around the edges of the present law and trying to make minor changes i think what the academy has done is to stake out the very very good job of the

subject matter and invite the congress to consider a wide range of love of options well in and bite you to comment on now on the basic proposals on the vine first of all the unrest stand what you think of that as an enforceable is a workable only appeared on it will it will take a more more time than the fourteen daylight hours i have so far spent without a very large report for me to reach any kind of responsible agency position on them and i can give you some some very preliminary reactions a basic feature of the recommendations of the of the institute of medicine academy of sciences if you took them wall to wall and adoptable would be a really very massive transfer of regulatory authority of policy making authority from the congress to the exhibit to the executive it would give them you get a great deal more discretion discretion is

in some respects uncomfortable too much of it can be damaging to a regulatory agency because that invites a host of outside influences to work to try to work a portion action into this corner this corner this corner the other set of questions i think there have to do with the breadth in range of the regulatory solutions that are available and with the risk of hierarchy moderate caught a low rider offered i'd like you to look at water regulatory agency does just that the margin just with the very next sentence you have an edge in the universe as it would be twenty years after these provisions went into effect and i think it would be a complicated yours doctor do you want the discretionary power that the committee was forgiving not sure we may very well oh what's some of it as it as you may know the food and red administration the administration in general have been asked to comment on these proposals we will be doing so we will be generating some legislative recommendations navarro

there's no question that that this report has shown it's a very useful possibility some useful direction how far will go in the direction of asking for all that discretion is the question and it's not just a question for us it's a question for everybody to think about who's interested in the problems of of health and safety regulation finally do you share dr campbell's concern over how it not and properties the three levels of risk allen might be interpreted to the public the public might interpret the meaning sure it's a concern i share i'm sure the majority shares a girl because it's it's very near the heart of the issue of the questions are to do we have a scientific knowledge necessary to make firm and confident assignments of substances doing risk category are probably not in all cases just as we now don't always know enough our to assign the quantitative values to risks even for the purpose of

selecting agency priorities and regulation knowledge isn't always what you like it to be but risks being rescued sometimes hefty economic inequity or lack of a month duran and so what do you say to the point out that al gore is not the kennedys just heard commented on that science doesn't have the knowledge to make that easily make accurate categorization supply medium or low risk i think that that's exactly why we say hymie human wall and don't drive a quantitative in and no greater precision of eight it's absolutely correct but you cannot qualitative in precise terms that is not what we're proposing were proposing that the scientific me and a judgment and unfortunately

when we deal with issues where the science can only take you so far whether you like it or not you have to make judgments let's put it in terms that consumers save saccharin would understand somebody buying a soft drink would suppose that were labeled a medium risk substance included in a soft drink ad on whether that's a correct assumption or not would you have to have a skull and crossbones on a can and then presumably would you not have to have and then presumably some kind of fairly precise assessment of the risk there to people if they drag thirty seven cans a day for their entire lives they lived or something that that's a common comment about the second issue of the thirty seven candidates which relates to the amount of stuff the rats got which doesn't hold up scientifically but you would have to give some information of course our fully aware that trying to inform the public isn't an easy business and

it is suggested that possibly a logo not a skull and crossbones obviously with some of corporate logo that the idea behind all this is actually to simplify matters and give the public a relatively easy way to identify things that they ought to look into this is a warning that you'd better look and one would have to provide some additional information there are various ways this can be done jackie kennedy's agency has been rather active in trying to develop better labeling methods that are no means of informing the public this is a really an area rather extensive research or should take on dr campbell coming to the point of the canon soft drink with saccharin and i'm not making a judgment on soccer an hour would it be possible in your view to be specific enough accurately to inform the public about the kind of risks that would run in buying that candor remember you know serving of specific enough the

report suggests that's akron might be labeled either in the moderate or high risk category on i would disagree with our problems that this perhaps is the simplest kind of classification system that that is possible that as a three tiered system basically an uncertain is very broad what concerns now are areas where all the lenders between they are low to moderate and in a moderate to high risk and he's these connotations for the wire can be quite substantial and i think the third one one place is a product in one of these risk categories in spite of the fact that the scientists know full well as a brat two of the buyer tends to walk into the concept that the law has some more specificity to that dr kennedy you had a lot of experience in doing this would you care to be the one who will be you know the warnings on account of soft drink about second it important thing to be said about the about the

labeling skiing argues that you have to look at it not just with the first substance of but with that with the two hundred odd yet taken at face value the academy's recommendations would involve considerable switches from a strategy of limiting the availability of compounds or banning them entirely to simply warning the public about what would the supermarket in fact look like since many foods are processed and therefore have many ingredients of food my parents more than one logo suppose it contained two medium or one medium and one high risk getting artsy would have to logos perhaps of a different kind of the five thousand products docked in a typical supermarket one were to go through and find different combinations of different logos what would happen in the first instance to consumer confidence in the food supply and in the second instance isn't it possible that some consumers might really rather but not yet yet another complicated set of decision

burdens to the time they spend in the supermarket that they'd like to use the time they're spending the fighting between photons safety grounds in making other kinds of decision can i ask each of you in conclusion since the inspiration for this report was leah discovery that saccharin caused cancer in male white riots and given in large doses you each of you have a personal opinion right now whether saccharin should be banned as the present law will require and maybe thirteenth or should some moratorium be extended dr campbell do you have an opinion yes i do we have a few seconds i wonder if i can just get it from each of you without qualification is running out of time ok i think there are no demonstrated benefits number one there are definite risk associate with his sister carol ann i have more confidence in the risk assessment that i do in the benefit assessment and therefore i would suggest that be banned from food use at some point are dr robinson a

word no no not recommend band dr kennedy i think you know we should follow through on an fda its original proposal which is to limit its availability in the folk forms that constitutes most of music i think we have to leave it thank you all for joining us tonight imagine that's all that and i will be back on monday night i'm robert mcneil it's been one hour christian to heal their report was produced by wnet web a bear is solely responsible for its content funding for this

program has been provided by the station and other public television stations and bike grant excellent cooperation allied chemical corporation and the corporation for public broadcasting the people in the polls be right you're only learned moon