Statements

IFAC Statement on U.S. Interagency Strategy to Reduce Food Waste

On April 9, 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new interagency strategy for reducing food waste, titled the Winning on Reducing Food Waste FY 2019-2020 Federal Interagency Strategy. This modernized approach to addressing food waste prioritizes six key action areas, from improving consumer education and food labeling, to the agencies working both collaboratively and independently to help reduce food loss and waste in the United States. The new interagency strategy comes after the three federal agencies signed a formal agreement in 2018, titled the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative. One year later, the April 2019 announcement signifies a key step towards the U.S. government’s overall goal of reducing food waste and loss by 50 percent by 2030. The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) endorses the U.S. government’s interagency approach to reducing food waste and is committed to contributing in this endeavor.

The United States discards 30-40 percent of all available food and food comprises the largest type of waste in daily American trash. According to the EPA’s sustainable management guide, 2015 saw more than 39 million tons of food waste created and estimates food waste comprised 22 percent of all discarded municipal solid waste that same year. These numbers reflect the pressing need for streamlined regulations, simpler solutions and consistent communications to reduce food waste, enhance consumer understanding of food labels and food safety, and empower all stakeholders to take an active role in addressing this problem. 

IFAC acknowledges that the responsibility to minimize food waste does not rest solely with the one group – be it the food industry, regulators, policy makers or consumers. We all eat, and it is critical that we all work together as global citizens to reduce food waste and ensure an adequate food supply for the predicted worldwide population of 10 billion people in 2050. Therefore, IFAC is especially supportive of the Federal Interagency Strategy’s fifth priority area: “Collaborate with Private Industry to Reduce Food Loss and Waste Across the Supply Chain.” While the U.S. strategy is domestic in nature, the issue of food waste is not, and IFAC looks forward to leveraging its international membership and global reach to support this key initiative. In addition, as IFAC members range from producers to end-users of food ingredients, IFAC supports food waste reduction efforts at all levels of the supply chain.

There are many ways the food industry can help prevent food waste. In addition to implementing changes to product packaging and labeling, companies can also consider product formulations and how individual ingredients may be used to protect products from spoiling. Many food additives not only help enhance the visual and textural appeal of products, but may also help extend the shelf life of foods and beverages ranging from fresh produce to more finished products such as soups and salad dressings. Safely preserving food and extending shelf life is a critical factor in reducing the likelihood that foods will be discarded.

IFAC strongly supports The Winning on Reducing Food Waste FY 2019-2020 Federal Interagency Strategy and looks forward to engaging with industry, government and consumers to help solve the total issue of food waste.

IFAC Statement Regarding the Study “High-Phosphate Diet Induces Exercise Intolerance and Impairs Fatty Acid Metabolism in Mice”

In January 2019, an article titled “High-Phosphate Diet Induces Exercise Intolerance and Impairs Fatty Acid Metabolism in Mice” was published in the journal Circulation. The authors suggest dietary phosphorus is over consumed and found a link between higher phosphate consumption to exercise intolerance and less time spent exercising on a treadmill using mice models. As these findings were based on observational studies in mice and the researchers’ opinion of what “excess” means, they should be interpreted cautiously. Studies linking mice models to human health outcomes have many limitations, and multiple factors contribute to a person’s desire and ability to exercise, many of which should not be attributed to a slightly higher phosphate intake and the duration spent exercising.

The study was conducted to determine the association between inorganic phosphate, a food additive, with physical activity in humans. The authors suggest phosphate is “used in excess” as a preservative and flavor enhancer in foods, citing between 40 and 70 percent of common selling grocery items as containing phosphate additives. The researchers go on to report up to 25 percent of American adults have three or four times higher intakes of the recommended daily allowance of phosphorus.

In order to determine the “direct effects” of dietary phosphate on exercise capacity and other biochemical markers, a treadmill exercise test was conducted on mice fed either a normal phosphate diet (n=15-18; 0.6% of diet) or a high phosphate diet (n=4-7; 2.0% of diet) for 12 weeks. The researchers found that a high phosphate diet appeared to decrease time spent on a treadmill as compared to the normal phosphate diet. However, there was no effect on body weight and there were no significant differences in the biochemical markers of mice fed either diet. The researchers also studied phosphate levels in human blood/serum, and found higher phosphate levels appeared to “decrease physical activity independently of renal [kidney] function and body mass index.” As it relates to oxidation in skeletal muscle during exercise, the researchers made a determination on muscle strength in the human study after only one single bout of muscle contraction; daily physical activity ability was not determined. The researchers conclude the high phosphate diet in mice induces disruption in skeletal muscle metabolism and the study results may have a broader public health implication to the general population.

IFAC has numerous concerns with this study. First, it should be noted that many authoritative scientific and regulatory bodies have not provided tolerable upper intake levels for dietary phosphorus due to inadequate scientific evidence. The outcome of a 2017 research review indicated “available data were not sufficient to establish a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for phosphorus.” Therefore, in this study, the authors’ perception of “excess” intake should not be used to draw conclusions about excessive intake. IFAC believes another fault in the study includes a small sample size of mice which was only 4-7 mice in the high phosphate diet group and 15-18 mice in the normal phosphate diet group. The researchers attempt to correlate a higher phosphorus diet in only 4-7 mice with decreased time spent doing physical activity is not supported by strong evidence and, in this case, might simply be a matter of desire or interest of the mice participants. Regarding physical activity in humans, IFAC and the researchers can agree with findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 80% of American adults do not meet the recommended “physical activity guidelines for aerobic and muscle strengthening.” However, IFAC believes multiple factors contribute to muscle strength, endurance, and overall exercise ability and no single dietary mineral can be attributed to physical stamina—especially if most people are not normally physically active and in the study “daily physical activity ability was not determined.”

IFAC Statement on UN State of Food Security and Nutrition Report

In September 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released its second annual State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report. The report serves to monitor progress made towards achieving a world without hunger and malnutrition, within the context of the United Nation’s (UN) Sustainability Development Goals.

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) endorses the multisectoral approach suggested by FAO, which states that, “Actions need to be accelerated and scaled up to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity of food systems, people’s livelihoods, and nutrition…” IFAC acknowledges that the food industry alone cannot deliver solutions that address the main drivers of hunger and malnutrition; however, there is a critically important role industry can play to help alleviate this global crisis.

In 2017, a staggering 821 million people were reported to be suffering from hunger. This corresponds to nearly 11 percent of the world’s population. Discouragingly, between 2014 and 2017, rather than seeing a decrease in the total number of people suffering from hunger, the numbers increased by 37.3 million people. While most hungry people live in lower-to-middle-income countries, hunger and lack of reliable access to healthy, safe, and affordable food are complex global problems. The UN report stresses that climate change and political conflicts are the key drivers behind the 2014 reversal in the progress made during the second half of the twentieth century towards reducing hunger and malnutrition.

A lack of access to adequate food and nutrition is caused by an array of factors, some of which can be addressed through food industry efforts. As an association representing companies who produce and use food ingredients, one of IFAC’s main objectives is to unite and cultivate a responsible and sustainable global food environment. IFAC members utilize both traditional and innovative technologies, as well as modern food science, to help support sustainable food strategies and minimize food waste.

For example, one IFAC member has developed a plant-derived invisible, edible coating that slows the rate by which fresh produce typically degrades, thereby increasing the shelf life and protecting the quality of fresh fruits and vegetables. This product has shown tremendous potential to provide populations in isolated geographies and developing countries with access to fresh produce without reliance on cost-prohibitive or infrastructure-intensive food preservation technologies such as refrigeration. Another IFAC member utilizes microbial food cultures found commonly in cheese and other foods for “bioprotection,” in which the cultures are used to keep products such as yogurt fresh longer. Using microbial cultures in this way not only helps prevent waste, but also helps protect and increase yields in the agricultural sector. Furthermore, several other members produce stabilizing ingredients that help formulate foods that are shelf-stable under ambient conditions and extend the shelf-life of products traditionally in need of refrigeration. This not only helps ensure nutritious products can be transported to remote areas more easily, but also enables equity in the food system by providing equal access to the same health benefits afforded by nutritious yet perishable products.

The FAO report determines that, “The signs of increasing food insecurity and high levels of different forms of malnutrition are a clear warning of the urgent need for considerable additional work to ensure we ‘leave no one behind’ on the road towards achieving the SDG goals on food security and nutrition.” IFAC supports FAO’s efforts to monitor and communicate progress towards eradicating world hunger and stands by its member companies whose products are contributing to this goal.

IFAC Statement on Nanotechnology

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is a global association representing manufacturers and users of food ingredients. IFAC is committed to ensuring the safety of its members’ products as well as communicating technical information about ingredients in foods.

A term that is sometimes linked to food is nanotechnology, and is often accompanied by words such as “nanoparticles” or just “nano”. Nanotechnology refers to the study and control of matter at an incredibly small scale, generally between 1 and 100 nanometers, and is not well understood by consumers. Although particle size is not commonly considered in the context of food, many foods, beverages and even water are naturally comprised of nanoscale particles. For example, milk is an emulsion of nanoscale fat droplets. While nanoscale particles have always been present in foods and beverages, food scientists have developed technologies to engineer nanomaterials in order to support improvements in the food and beverage industry. Nanotechnology has allowed for advancements such as more protective food packaging materials and increased availability of beneficial nutrients in foods.

As with any new technology, questions have been raised about the need to assess the potential impact of nanoparticles on health, safety and the environment. Global scientific and regulatory agencies are therefore reviewing information and data on nanotechnology and several guidance documents have already been published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

IFAC strongly believes that the safety of food ingredients depends on the specific substance in question, and should not be determined based solely on its particle size. In addition, industry’s innovative use of nanotechnology should not impact the credibility of safety assessments for ingredients already on the market, which have a significant history of safe use. To ensure transparency and prevent confusion among consumers and other audiences, it is important to distinguish products with a history of safe use from new ingredients or applications utilizing nanotechnology which have not undergone the same level of safety testing. IFAC believes that clearly defining nanotechnology for industry and consumers is a first step in doing so. Therefore, IFAC urges regulators and scientific communicators to clearly specify that nanotechnology refers to the human engineering of particles in order to create matter smaller than 100 nanometers. As the European Union (EU) describes in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283, engineered nanomaterials are defined as “any intentionally produced material that has one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less or that is composed of discrete functional parts, either internally or at the surface…” Nanotechnology should not be used interchangeably with nanoparticles or the generic term “nano,” which includes particles of nanoscale dimensions that occur naturally and/or are not necessarily produced through new forms of nanotechnology.  In addition, it is important that government labeling and industry sourcing policies serve to address newly engineered nanomaterials, so as not to proliferate irrational fear amongst consumers concerning the foods and beverages they have historically consumed.

IFAC strongly believes it is critical that all food ingredients and food contact materials undergo extensive safety testing prior to entering the food supply. IFAC supports the existing FDA regulatory framework for determining the safety of food additives, GRAS substances and food contact materials, as well as the European Commission’s food additive re-evaluation mandate. Such regulatory requirements ensure all foods and beverages on the market, including those manufactured using nanotechnology, are safe. In addition, while IFAC firmly supports clear, fact-based communications regarding nanotechnology, we also believe that the freedom to innovate through the use of advanced technologies is essential to respond to consumer demand, improve products and processes, and ultimately feed the growing global population.

The ability to innovate while continuing to comply with new and existing strict safety requirements is in line with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approach to be “adaptive and flexible and to take into consideration the specific characteristics and the effects of nanomaterials in the particular biological context of each product and its intended use.” Therefore, as innovative processes allow for the engineering of food ingredients and materials reduced to nanoscale, potential safety issues need to be assessed on a case by case basis. FDA has provided specific guidance to industry on the potential impact of significant manufacturing process changes involving nanotechnology on the safety and regulatory status of food substances.

IFAC believes it is the responsibility of both industry and regulators to develop responsible policies and guidance around the definition, labeling requirements, and industry use of nanotechnology. As with all novel ingredients, approvals and opinions intended to inform new standards or regulations should be based on the unbiased assessment of strong peer-reviewed research and stakeholder input.

Dietary Phosphorous – Health, Nutrition, and Regulatory Aspects: IFAC Response

In September 2017, the book Dietary Phosphorous – Health, Nutrition, and Regulatory Aspects was published by CRC Press. Authors Mona Calvo and Jaime Uribarri review dietary intake levels of phosphorus and discuss health endpoints associated with phosphorus consumption. The authors argue that current intakes of phosphorus are higher than human physiological requirements, and assert higher serum phosphorus concentrations are shown to be significantly associated with a higher incidence of morbidity and mortality in North America and Europe.

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient that is required for human health. Published dietary reference intakes for phosphorus include estimates of average requirements and recommended dietary allowances. However, not all authoritative bodies have provided tolerable upper intake levels for dietary phosphorus due to inadequate scientific evidence.

Phosphates are common food additives used to leaven cakes, cookies, pancakes, waffles, and donuts; to maintain the structure and hydration of meat, poultry, and seafood products; to improve fluidity of evaporated milk; flavor or add minerals to beverages; and to maintain the structure of canned fruit and vegetable products. Often there are no alternatives that can be used in the same small quantities to accomplish these functions in foods. In addition, some food-additive phosphates contain other minerals, such as calcium, potassium, and magnesium, which are consumed by some populations in quantities below what is recommended. Therefore, consumption of these phosphates help assist with intake of such nutrients.

In addition to reviewing intake levels, the book authors discuss health endpoints associated with phosphorous intake that go beyond physiologic requirements such as progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), mineral bone disease and calcification of soft tissue, cardiovascular disease, mortality, anemia, and cancer (strictly in-vitro studies). The authors suggest phosphorus intake is associated with each of these conditions, and present different levels of evidence for each endpoint. While phosphorus intake has been associated with certain endpoints in specific sub-populations, including those predisposed to such conditions, in 2017 an extensive research review identified only two primary research publications that focused on data specific to a direct association between a food-additive phosphate and clinical outcomes in the general population. Otherwise, the investigator in the review found that any associations between phosphorus intake and health endpoints are inconclusive.

The outcome of the 2017 research review is consistent with the National Academy of Medicine as well as the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) 2015 Scientific Opinion on dietary reference values for phosphorus, which stated “available data were not sufficient to establish a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for phosphorus.” Thus, future research on upper level intake is needed as the causality of any association between dietary phosphorous and clinical outcomes identified in studies could not be determined.

Difficulties in determining dietary phosphorus intake and, in particular, the intake of food-additive phosphate include: the inherent limitations of widely used dietary ascertainment methods, such as 24-hour dietary recalls and food frequency questionnaires (FFQs); likely inaccuracies in nutrient composition tables, as well as inherent difficulties in determining the quantity of phosphorus intake.

Though there is inadequate evidence currently available regarding dietary phosphorous intake, concerns related to health outcomes remain. Any policy or regulatory actions taken should be based in high quality evidence and align with recommendations made by authorities such as EFSA and the National Academy of Medicine.