| |
by Francine Schwartz
On July 30, 1985 Ann Weltman, 30
years old, walked into a Los Angeles delicatessen. Aware of her
sensitivity to sulfites, she took the precaution before ordering to ask
the deli manager if sulfites were used in any of the restaurant's food,
specifically potatoes. After checking the plastic bag in which the
potatoes were delivered, the manager assured Weltman she had nothing to
worry about. He was wrong. She died.
The amount of sulfites later found
in Weltman's fatal dose of hash browns were within allowable federal
limits (242 parts per million). No problem there. But the package label
which the deli manager had obligingly checked didn't list any sulfites and that little
omission cost Weltman her life.
The FDA estimates that half
the people
who consume sulfites are actually
exceeding the recommended
upper level.
Weltman brought to 15 the number of
fatalities associated with sulfites since 1983. To date 500 reports of
illness have been attributed to sulfite sensitivity. And it's been
estimated that as many as 10 percent of the nation's 10 million asthma
sufferers could be sulfite sensitive.
SULFITES ARE USED as antimicrobials (to keep food from spoiling) and
antioxidants (to prevent rancidity) as well as anti-browning agents (to
make the food look pretty). They're used in dozens of foods and drugs,
from raisins to flour to Bronkosol (used in the treatment of asthma).
In the spotlight for the last few years is their use in cut vegetables
and potatoes in salad bars. But they're also used in dried fruits,
seafood, many packaged, processed foods, and especially wine, where the
highest levels of sulfites are found. The FDA estimates that half the
people who consume sulfites are actually exceeding the recommended
upper level.
But action by the FDA to regulate
the use of sulfites has been agonizingly slow. The Washington
D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a
non-profit consumer protection agency, blames the Reagan
Administration. Specifically it points to the philosophy that currently
prevails in Washington which gives equal "if not overriding" weight to
economic considerations.
. . . while questionable
additives on the GRAS list (such as BHA, BHT, and
sulfites) remain under evaluation,
substances continue to be used.
Back in 1939 the Food and Drug
Cosmetic Act gave the FDA authority to move against any chemicals in
food that were found to be unsafe for human consumption. Twenty years
later came the Food Additive Amendment. This required that additives
have a demonstrated
safety record. The amendment was on the right track, but it applied
only to "new" additives. The hundreds already in common use were
automatically swept into the FDA's shelter from the storm - the
"generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) list. In the early seventies the
FDA reviewed a list of more than two dozen antimicrobials and
antioxidants. Only six were reaffirmed as safe. The FDA either had not
yet taken a final stand or was still evaluating data on the rest. And
while questionable additives on the GRAS list (such as BHA, BHT, and
sulfites) remain under evaluation, substances continue to be used. What
this means is that the agency hasn't said they're not okay, but they haven't said
they are, either.
 Years of dogged sleuthing by the CSPI unearthed
a pile of case reports and other medical evidence that linked health
problems to sulfites. In October of 1982 the CSPI petitioned the FDA to
ban or severely restrict the use of sulfites in foods and drugs. The
FDA - after conceding that sulfites were indeed a threat to public
health and that some action was needed - took the mild mannered
approach: The agency "recommended" that states require restaurants to
use "conspicuous and easily readable labels, signs, placards and menu
statements" to inform the public of any sulfites in their food. The
National Restaurant Association reported that restaurant owners
resisted complying because they felt such warnings were bad for
business. But word was out. Many restaurants, rather than post warnings
of sulfites use, simply stopped using sulfites altogether - without any
government ruling. On August 9 this year the federal government moved
to ban the use of all six sulfite preservatives (sulfur dioxide, sodium
bisulfite, sodium and potassium metabisulfite, sodium sulfite and
potassium bisulfite) from use in fresh vegetables and fruits. Moving
from proposal stage to law could take as long as a year, according to
the Consumer Affairs office of the FDA's San Francisco branch.
Physicians have found the
lack of
sulfite labelling an intolerable
situation.
On November 19 this year the FDA
proposed to list the presence of sulfites on prescription drugs, except
those for oral use. Among these drugs are several used in the treatment
of asthma. Physicians have found the lack of sulfite labelling an
intolerable situation But when their patients react badly to certain
drugs, they have no way of knowing if the negative reaction was to the
medication or to sulfites present in the drug.
As for the legal process in moving a
proposal to law - once a proposal is out, the consumer can particpate
in the rulemaking process during the "commentary period." But even FDA
officials admidst that although industry is well aware of this
opportunity provided for consumer comment, the average consumer isn't.
 LAST JULY 11TH, DANIEL
TSEVAT, 33, drank from a bottle of 1983
German white moselle wine in Dallas. He died shortly after. Cause of
death, according to the medical examiner's office, was acute asthma.
Tsevat, a diagnosed asthmatic, had been warned to stay away from
sulfites. When tested laster the wine showed a sulfite content of 92
parts per million - again, within allowable federal limits.
On June 23 the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) proposed that the amount of sulfur dioxide
or other sulfites in alcoholic beverages be shown on the label if the
amount exceeds 10 parts per million. In addition they proposed to
substantially lower the allowable limit from the current 350 parts per
million. The issue is still in the proposal stage.
But an even bigger issue is
breathing down the neck of the BATF these days. On October 31 Judge
John H. Pratt, a U.S. District Courth judge, ruled that the BATF will
have to require a complete ingredient list on all alcoholic beverage
labels starting April 30, 1986. Although the BATF's own labeling
proposal concerns sulfites, it is the only ingredient they require listed, other than FDA yellow #5. The BATF had
already rescinded similar legal rulings twice, contending that the cost
of the rule far outweighed any possible health benefits But the CSPI
called the rescissions illegal and the judge agreed - twice. At press time the agency
had obtained a legal stay, so once again the matter is on hold.
. . . sulfites are sprinkled
on fresh and
processed clams, lobster, crab,
scallops, dried cod, and
most notably, shrimp.
Not affected by these proposed
preservative regulations is the fishing industry. According to a list
provided by the CSPI, sulfites are sprinkled on fresh and processed
clams, lobster, crab, scallops, dried cod, and most notably, shrimp.
And sulfites aren't the only additives used on fish. Commonly used are
polytrisorbates (to control yeast and mold), sodium benzoates (to kill
bacteria), and polyphosphates (to keep the fish from "dripping"). All
three chemicals are on the FDA's GRAS list. According to Michael Smith,
the fish buyer at San Anselmo Living Foods, chemicals are not used on
live animals like mussels and clams, nor on whole fish. Smith, who
refuses to buy chemically treated fish, and other Marin wholesales and
retailers, say local fish is untouched. But fish brought in from the
East Coast, Washington, Oregon, and more distant places like Australia
or Chile, are chemically treated to better survive the transport
process. According to the FDA, the chemicals are all harmless if used
within prescribed amounts:
- Polytrisorbates are broken down
in the body like a fatty acid, says the FDA. Its limitation is imposed
because the additive affects flavor, not health.
- Sodium benzoate is abosrbed by
the bloodstream and goes directly to the liver. If used unsparingly, it
makes the body work harder, much like alcohol. Some tests have shown
unpleasant physiological effects on animals, but other studies indicate
that animals live longer if they have benzoates.
- When digested, polyphosphates
change the mineral balance in the body, but researchers seem to agree
that the change is insignificant.
Another method for prolonging shelf
life in fish is vacuum packing. In this provess, hydrogen is shot into
the packgage when it is being sealed. Detroyed in great part by this
procedure are the bacteria that cause offensive odors. No odors means
longer shelf life, as much as two weeks longer. But proper handling of
vacuum packed fish is crucial. They spoil extra-quickly if left
unrefrigerated for even a brief period, but - unlike untreated fish - they don't
produce the odor that would normally warn the consumer away.
A more expensive and more recent
procedure for preserving fish is shipping it in nitrogen cans. Nitrogen
replaces oxygen and cuts down on normal spoilage. Again - proper
refrigeration is essential.
At this point no definitive research
has pointed to a problem with the chemicals used on fish, as long as
they're used in accordance with FDA restrictions. Nevertheless a
growing number of retailers, consumers and even wholesalers have begun
asking questions, in anticipation of possible problems. One handicap to
this effort is current FDA policy regarding labeling. For example,
since polyphosphates are used to reduce "drip" they're not considered
preservatives by the FDA - so they don't have to be listed.
This kind of fine
differentiation makes it tough for the consumer to know exactly what is
or what isn't contained in a product. As can be seen in the sulfite
issue, changes in labeling laws and regulations concerning the use of
chemicals do
occur. But progress is slow and in the meantime chemicals continue to
be used - often without our knowing about it.
Pacific Sun 1986
|
