Arsenic levels in apple juice to get closer scrutiny
Almost two years after consumer groups raised alarms over arsenic levels found in apple juice, the Food and Drug Administration on Friday proposed an “action level” of 10 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic, the same limit that environmental regulators place on drinking water.
The agency said it was confident that apple juice is generally safe for children and adults to drink but the new limit will make it easier to take enforcement action when higher levels of arsenic are discovered.
“FDA's action level sends a strong signal to industry to help keep out of the food supply even the occasional lot of apple juice with arsenic levels above those permitted in drinking water,” FDA spokeswoman Theresa Eisenman said in an email. “The action level will also provide FDA investigators with the information they need when considering regulatory action.”
Of 94 samples of apple juice the FDA tested in late 2011, none was found to exceed 10 ppb of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, the agency said.
In 2008 the FDA established a “level of concern” for inorganic arsenic in apple juice at 23 ppb. Like an action level, a level of concern can trigger regulatory responses if exceeded, such as ordering further testing or detaining products.
But both levels are seen as less stringent than a formal standard, or tolerance level, which if violated can trigger immediate legal action.
Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, said developing tolerance levels involves “an extraordinarily long and cumbersome rulemaking process” while action levels can be initiated less formally and changed to adapt to new evidence.
Urvashi Rangan, director of consumer safety and sustainability for Consumers Union, called the FDA's announcement a move in the right direction.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Fight against Islamic State at impasse, military commanders say
- Doctor 1st Ebola virus case in New York City
- West Virginia University expels 3 students for postgame misconduct
- Driver accused of pretending to be Ohio cop
- Missouri officials faulted by feds for ‘selective’ probe in police shooting death
- Defacements in national parks lead to outrage, probe
- Court: IRS not targeting conservative tax-exempt groups
- Man shot from behind, Wecht’s autopsy finds
- Huge gold nugget goes on sale for $400K
- 3 killed in Md. mid-air collision
- Feds fault security of tax info gathered for health care law benefits