Functional Foods Debate Heats Up, Focus on Weight Claims

WASHINGTONThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early December listened to stakeholders and others commenting on the future regulation of functional foods. In originally announcing the hearing, FDA said it believed current regulation of functional foods, including the agencys authority to enforce the rules and keep the public safe, was sufficient; but, it wanted to hear input from the industries involved and other stakeholders.

Most testimony from the food, supplement and beverage industries supported FDAs initial assessment on the adequacy of existing regulations. Leading this charge, the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) testified no new regulations are needed for functional foods, which have been safely consumed and governed for many yearsincluding Total cereal and Gatorade sports drink, introduced in 1961 and 1965, respectively.

The GRAS [generally recognized as safe] notification system works, and it works well, said Anthony Young, AHPAs general counsel and representative at the hearing. Young further stated current food law is already relevant to functional foods, with existing provisions requiring claims to be truthful and not misleading. Alternately, he suggested FDA could establish a voluntary food claims notification process similar to the GRAS ingredient notification process.

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) submitted its report Functional Foods: Opportunities and Challenges (2005) at the hearing along with testimony from Barbara Petersen, Ph.D., IFT Expert Panel member, who recommended product labeling of functional foods be allowed to accurately reflect current scientific evidence. She explained under existing regulatory policies, some food label claims cannot be factual and accurately represent the science; however, this limits the scope and accuracy of consumer information, curbing the development and marketing of functional foods. As long as claims are scientifically valid, enormous public health benefits would result from consumers understanding and acting on the claimed product benefit, she said, concluding FDA should prohibit functional food claims that rely solely on preliminary studies, and should develop guidelines that protect consumers from meager scientific information of no meaningful value.

On the other side of the debate, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) criticized functional foods and the current regulations governing them. Many so-called functional foods, would be more aptly named dysfunctional foods, said Bruce Silverglade, CSPI legal affairs director. Many energy drinks, for example, primarily consist of water, sugar and caffeine. But the food industry is pressuring the Bush Administration to extend already weak standards for dietary supplement ingredients and label claims to these newfangled products. That approach would make functional foods, a potentially useful idea, about as dependable as 19th century snake oil.

In the hearing, AHPA acknowledged the focus on energy drinks in the functional food regulation debate and recommended FDA use its authority to initiate a new rule that would require the amount of caffeine added to food be stated on the product label.