| 3
NOVc¢ 1969

EDITORIAL

The fallen hero

 

The recent summary ban of cyclamate by FDA raises
important questions about the Delaney clause and FDA procedures

Few, if any, quarrel with need for careful con-

Ten can take a number of forms. There
trol of products destined for human consumption,

is, of course, the tyranny of the Hitlers and

Stalins. There is the tyranny of majorities—and,
we might add, minorities. There is also the
tyranny of public opinion, especially in its more
hysterical form, and the well-intentioned but
heavy-handed government reaction to it. We
think the cyclamate saga (perhaps it should
be titled the fallen hero of the sweeteners) is a
case in point (C&EN, Oct. 27, page 20).

If the implications were not quite so serious,
the spectacle of food and soft drink producers,
retailers, Madison Avenue hucksters, and others
involved in the business end of the cyclamate
chain falling over themselves as they try to cut
loose from a product that so recently brought
presumably handsome profits would be humor-
ous, even ludicrous. As it is, the episode is
tinged with overtones of Orwell and a Salem
witch hunt, and, as one letter writer puts it, an
“antichemical McCarthyism.” Apparently, it is
to be followed by more of the same in connection
with monosodium glutamate, saccharin, and, who
knows, table salt.

It’s not that FDA has not done its duty under
the law. That's precisely the problem. Secre-
tary Finch had no choice, once presented with
the facts of the matter.

We think it is time that FDA, legislators, in-
terested technical people, and consumers at large
calm down and take a hard look at the cause
of it all—the so-called Delaney clause. The
Delaney clause is a final provision added to the
1958 food additives amendments that prevents
issuing approval or tolerance to any additive
which, when ingested by man or animal, or on
the basis of appropriate laboratory tests, is found
to induce cancer.

That’s a pretty sweeping provision. Under it,
a product like cyclamate, which has not been
shown to induce cancer in humans in 20 years
of widespread use, can be banned strictly on the
basis of unrealistically heavy dosages in animals.
We think this is unreasonable and technically
unsound. We think the clause should be revised
or even repealed.

direct or indirect. The stakes are too high to
leave industry and others to their own devices.
Certainly it is now accepted that only the Federal
Government can effectively implement the neces-
sary controls and adequately watch over the
public welfare.

But surely the Delaney clause is too broad
in one sense, too narrow in another. It is too
broad because it allows no tolerance. Raise
dosages high enough and make test conditions
severe enough and a vast number of chemicals
will likely prove to be cancer inducers, even
though they are perfectly safe in anything like
normal use.

It is too narrow because it refers only to cancer
and deals only with additives. Why only cancer?
Why not cover safety in all its aspects? And
why consider only additives? What about
naturally occurring substances that can harm
man? As it is, substances that occur naturally
receive a kind of blessing, under the law as it is
administered. Additives, though, can be banned,
even when the hazard may be considerably less
and dosages required to cause problems con-
siderably more than is the case with natural ma-
terials.

Furthermore, we feel that FDA’s operating
procedures in the cyclamate case leave some-
thing to be desired. Apparently the agency
was moved to action only after two of its sci-
entists—Dr. Jacqueline Verrett and Dr. Marvin
Legator—were interviewed by NBC News.
Rather unusual, we’d say.

It is hoped that the coming White House Con-
ference on Food, Nutrition, and Health (Dec.
2-4) will include some of these questions on its
agenda. Meanwhile, we trust we are not start-
ing some kind of 15-year count-down to 1984.

 

C&EN editorials are signed and represent only the views of the signer. Unless stated to the contrary they do not represent the official position of the American
Chemical Society. Rather they are aimed at focusing attention on some controversial point, at sparking intelligent discussion. at raising legitimate questions.

NOV. 3, 1969 C&EN 5