Center For Science In The Public Interest Research Articles

PREVALENSI BAKTERI Salmonella PADA AYAM POTONG YANG DIJUAL DI PASAR TRADISIONAL PANGKALPINANG

Salmonella bacteria is a pathogenic bacterium that can multiply in the digestive tract of animals and humans. The presence of Salmonella in the digestive system causes Salmonella contamination is often associated with the mouth through food contaminated with Salmonella. The Center for Science in The Public Interest (CSPI) states that chicken meat ranks first in food contaminated with pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella. This study aims to calculate the prevalence of Salmonella bacteria in chicken carcass in traditional markets, Pangkalpinang. The method used is descriptive with quantitative survey methods. The results showed that the prevalence of Salmonella bacteria in Pagi market, Putih market, and Ratu Tunggal market were 41.2%, 50% and 0%.

Current status on global sweetpotato cultivation and its prior tasks of mass production

Sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam] represents an attractive starch crop that can be used to facilitate solving global food and environmental problems in the 21st century. It can be used as industrial bioreactors to produce various high value-added materials, including bio-ethanol, functional feed, antioxidants, as well as food resources. The non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announced sweetpotato as one of the ten ‘super foods’ for better health, since it contains high levels of low molecular weight antioxidants such as vitamin-C, vitamin-E and carotenoids, as well as dietary fiber and potassium. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also reported that sweetpotato is the best bioenergy crop among starch crops on marginal lands, that does not affect food security. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that world population in 2050 will be 9.7 billion, and require approximately 1.7 times more food than today. In this respect, sweetpotato will be a solution to solving problems such as food, energy, health, and environment facing the globe in the 21st century. In this paper, the current status of resources, and cultivation of sweetpotato in the world was first described. Development of a new northern route of the sweetpotato and its prior tasks of large scale cultivation of sweetpotato, were also described in terms of global food security, and production of high-value added biomaterials.

U.S. senators push for ban on pure caffeine

Five U.S. senators are urging FDA to ban retail sales and marketing of bulk powdered caffeine after the 2014 deaths of two men who consumed too much of the substance. Last week, Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) joined the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and families of the men who overdosed to raise awareness about the dangers of pure caffeine. The deaths of the men, aged 18 and 24, prompted FDA to send warning letters last year to five distributors of powdered caffeine, claiming that the dietary supplements present “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” Those companies are no longer marketing the substance directly to consumers, but at least 19 others are, CSPI says. “It is disturbing that despite two unintended and untimely deaths associated with powdered caffeine, the FDA

Websites of note.

Websites of note.

Consistency of Nutrition Recommendations for Foods Marketed to Children in the United States, 2009–2010

IntroductionFood marketing has emerged as an environmental factor that shapes children’s dietary behaviors. “Advergames,” or free online games designed to promote branded products, are an example of evolving food marketing tactics aimed at children. Our primary objective was to classify foods marketed to children (aged 2–11 y) in advergames as those meeting or not meeting nutrition recommendations of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). We document the consistency of classification of those foods across agency guidelines and offer policy recommendations.MethodsWe used comScore Media Builder Metrix to identify 143 websites that marketed foods (n = 439) to children aged 2 to 11 years through advergames. Foods were classified on the basis of each of the 4 agency criteria. Food nutrient labels provided information on serving size, calories, micronutrients, and macronutrients.ResultsThe websites advertised 254 meals, 101 snacks, and 84 beverages. Proportions of meals and snacks meeting USDA and FDA recommendations were similarly low, with the exception of saturated fat in meals and sodium content in snacks. Inconsistency in recommendations was evidenced by only a small proportion of meals and fewer snacks meeting the recommendations of all the agencies per their guidelines. Beverage recommendations were also inconsistent across the 3 agencies that provide recommendations (USDA, IOM, and CSPI). Most (65%–95%) beverages advertised in advergames did not meet some of these recommendations.ConclusionOur findings indicate that a large number of foods with low nutritional value are being marketed to children via advergames. A standardized system of food marketing guidance is needed to better inform the public about healthfulness of foods advertised to children.

Secret ingredients: who knows what's in your food?

British chef and food activist Jamie Oliver ignited a firestorm in January 2011 when he mentioned on the Late Show with David Letterman that castoreum, a substance used to augment some strawberry and vanilla flavorings, comes from what he described as “rendered beaver anal gland.”1 The next year, vegans were outraged to learn that Starbucks used cochineal extract, a color additive derived from insect shells, to dye their strawberry Frappuccino® drinks2 (eventually, the company decided to transition to lycopene, a pigment found in tomatoes3). Although substances like castoreum and cochineal extract may be long on the “yuck factor,”4 research has shown them to be perfectly safe for most people; strident opposition arose not from safety issues but from the ingredients’ origins. But these examples demonstrate that the public often lacks significant knowledge about the ingredients in foods and where they come from. This is not a new development; the public relationship to food additives has a long history of trust lost, regained, and in some cases lost again. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act of 19385 was passed shortly after the deaths of 100 people who took an untested new form of a popular drug, which contained what turned out to be a deadly additive.6 The new law was consumer oriented and intended to ensure that people knew what was in the products they bought, and that those products were safe. The law has been amended over the years in attempts to streamline and bring order to the sprawling task of assessing and categorizing the thousands of substances used in foods, drugs, and cosmetics. One result of this streamlining is that under current U.S. law, companies can add certain types of ingredients to foods without premarket approval from the thin-stretched Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In other words, there are substances in the food supply that are unknown to the FDA. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that a “growing number of substances … may effectively be excluded from federal oversight.”7 Is this a problem? The answer depends on whom you ask.

Artificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavior

Artificial Food Color Additives and Child Behavior

A Genetic Perspective on Nutritional Profiles: Do We Still Need Them?

Background: The emergence of nutritional genomics and the availability of nutrigenetic tests, which use genetic information to identify food products suited/not suited to the individual nutrigenetic profile, allow defining personalized dietary advice. Aim: To compare personalized dietary advice provided to 24 Italian children by a nutrigenetic test based on the recommendations from 2 different, widely employed nutrient profiling (NP) schemes, the USA Health Claims (USAHC) and the Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children, published by the US Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI); the genetic test-NP agreement regarding 50 commonly eaten foods has been calculated. Methods: Twelve normal-weight and 12 overweight children were recruited in the Trieste district (North-East Italy), and nutrigenetic testing was offered using the G-Diet® Nutrigenomic Kit. Variants of 20 genes were tested and personalized dietary advice was formulated for each subject. The agreement between the NP schemes and among the nutrigenomic indications and both profiles was computed using Cohen’s ĸ. Results: Agreement between the USAHC and CSPI schemes was very poor overall (Cohen’s ĸ = 0.66). The agreement among the nutrigenomic indications and profiles ranged overall from 0.43 to 0.74 for each nutrigenomic profile with the USAHC, and from 0.29 to 0.80 with the CSPI. Conclusion: Disagreement on food classification among different NP schemes and inconsistencies deriving from nutrigenetic tests advocate more research into this area.

DIET AND NUTRITION: The Artificial Food Dye Blues

In 2008 the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in Washington, DC, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban artificial food dyes because of their connection to behavioral problems in children.1 Two years later a new CSPI report, Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks, further concludes that the nine artificial dyes approved in the United States likely are carcinogenic, cause hypersensitivity reactions and behavioral problems, or are inadequately tested.2 Artificial dyes derived from petroleum are found in thousands of foods.3 In particular breakfast cereals, candy, snacks, beverages, vitamins, and other products aimed at children are colored with dyes. Even some fresh oranges are dipped in dye to brighten them and provide uniform color, says Michael Jacobson, executive director at CSPI. According to the International Association of Color Manufacturers, a trade association for food dye makers and users, artificial color additives enhance and correct natural colors and “provide a colorful identity to foods that would otherwise be virtually colorless,” as well as compensating for natural color loss during storage and providing a way to quickly identify pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements.4 Food dye consumption per person has increased fivefold in the United States since 1955, with three dyes—Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6—accounting for 90% of the dyes used in foods.2 For its report CSPI reviewed published studies and “found some surprises,” says Jacobson. For example, most chemical carcinogenicity studies use relatively small numbers of animals, do not include in utero exposures, and last two years, the rodent equivalent of about 65 human years.5 Because cancers may not show up until a rodent’s third year of life, corresponding to the time when cancers also are more likely to appear in humans, the two-year time frame for standard bioassays may reduce the likelihood a carcinogenic chemical will be identified, says James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 contain benzidene, a human and animal carcinogen permitted in low, presumably safe levels in dyes.2 The FDA calculated in 1985 that ingestion of free benzidine raises the cancer risk to just under the “concern” threshold (1 cancer in 1 million people).6 Bound benzidene also has been detected in dyes in much greater amounts than free benzidene,7,8 but routine FDA tests measure only free contaminants, overlooking the bound moiety.2 Intestinal enzymes release bound benzidene, “so we could be exposed to vastly greater amounts of carcinogens than FDA’s routine tests indicate,” says Jacobson—especially considering today’s children are exposed to multiple dyes and flavoring agents and other added chemicals in foods.9 FDA policy is not to comment on topics that are currently under review. This includes CSPI’s open 2008 petition, whose docket of evidence now includes the new report. Ira R. Allen of the FDA Office of Public Affairs did say, “We appreciate the report from CSPI and are reviewing it. We take our commitment to protecting children seriously.” In a statement released after the publication of A Rainbow of Risks, the International Association of Color Manufacturers highlighted its adherence to current FDA protocols, noting, “The FDA has repeatedly stated that these colors are safe based on the available safety data.”4 Food manufacturers still use plant-based colorings in some countries. For example, in the United Kingdom Fanta orange soda is colored with pumpkin and carrot extracts while the U.S. version uses Red 40 and Yellow 6. McDonald’s strawberry sundaes are colored only with strawberries in Britain, but Red 40 is used in the United States. With many U.S. consumers desiring fewer synthetic additives, “companies may be better off switching to [plant-based colors],” Jacobson says. “Natural alternatives may present less of a risk, but I still would like to see their toxic potential assayed before we give them to kids,” says Bernard Weiss, a professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester. Weiss argued 30 years ago there was evidence linking artificial food dyes to behavioral problems in children.10 Yet the FDA still does not require manufacturers to test dyes for developmental neurotoxicity. “Their inaction amounts to approval of an ongoing experiment with children,” Weiss says. Meanwhile, in Europe, as of July 2010 most foods that contain artificial dyes must carry labels warning they may cause hyperactivity in children.11 Jacobson says, “This warning may be the death knell for [artificial] food dyes in Europe, especially for foods commonly eaten by children.”

Tough New Conflicts Rules

Three leading journals have adopted or announced plans to adopt conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of unprecedented strictness. Addiction, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and the Journal of the American College of Surgeons are now requiring authors to disclose every financial tie, regardless of size, held within 3 years prior to submission. Editors from each journal collaborated with the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to develop the policy, which the center released this week. Addiction editor Thomas Babor says it's an attempt to preserve scientific integrity amid revelations of scientists who concealed industry backing of their research. CSPI has circulated the model among hundreds of journals but no others have signed on; many feel their current policies are sufficient, says CSPI project director Merrill Goozner.

TALKING ABOUT…

TALKING ABOUT…

Research Issues: A Question of Balance

Expert committees convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have long advised the U.S. government and the public on challenging technical issues. But are those committees fair and balanced in their views? Perhaps not, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a Washington, DC–based advocacy group. In an investigation spanning two and a half years, the CSPI reviewed 21 NAS committees and concluded that one in five of their members had direct ties to industries with a stake in study outcomes. The group reports its findings in Ensuring Independence and Objectivity at the National Academies, released 24 July 2006. Merrill Goozner, director of CSPI’s Integrity in Science Project and a coauthor of the report, acknowledges the investigation could find no evidence showing that NAS conclusions were adulterated by industry affiliations. “Nevertheless,” he says, “the report raises an important question: do industry ties make committees less bold with respect to their conclusions than they might be otherwise?” CSPI’s conclusions hinge on its controversial definition of “conflict of interest,” described in the report as “a financial tie within the last five years to a company or industry that is relevant to a committee topic.” Of 320 experts reviewed by CSPI, at least 56 had conflicts meeting that criterion, while 66 had a history of espousing what the authors call “pro-industry” positions in research papers or legal testimony. Nine experts were closely aligned with nonprofit environmental or public-interest organizations. The NAS responds that, if applied, CSPI’s conflict-of-interest definition would make it nearly impossible to recruit qualified experts for committee membership. Spokesman Bill Kearney says the NAS merely considers whether experts or their immediate relations or business partners have current financial interests that might be directly affected by the committee’s work. Previous ties to industry—or to any other interest—don’t influence the selection, he says, unless they reveal a distinct bias towards a particular view, which can be balanced by adding someone with an opposing view to the committee. “We disagree with CSPI’s definition,” Kearney says. “It excludes people who in our opinion don’t have a financial stake in the outcome of a study.” Kearney also stresses that the NAS’s conflict-of-interest screens comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Dan Greenbaum, president of the private Health Effects Institute, serves on the NAS Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, and has also participated in expert committees on air quality. He warns that CSPI’s more stringent criteria could exclude some outstanding and impartial scientists, and that fuller public disclosure could raise issues of privacy. But he adds that the report serves a useful purpose by pushing for conflict-of-interest data at earlier stages in the selection process. “CSPI is helping to move that agenda forward,” he says. “They’ve made the academy nervous and at times understandably upset . . . but they’ve also brought in a level of scrutiny that advances the process.”

Cuttings

Two of medicine's most powerful journals, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), are under withering attack. Rather unfairly, some would say that it's about time too. Richard Smith has recently been reincarnated as the scourge of the indecent and incredulous. He has used his new found freedom in the pages of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine to claim that the NEJM has been “damaged” by serious editorial “lapses”. His case is based on the NEJM's embarrassment over its allegedly wayward handling of the Vioxx controversy. Smith attacked the NEJM's editor, Jeff Drazen, for what the journal supposedly knew of the drug before publishing an expression of concern about key clinical trial data in 2005. Smith called Drazen's behaviour “lamentable”, and the journal's actions “slow” and “poor practice”. JAMA and its editor, Catherine DeAngelis, have also come under fire. The Wall Street Journal recently documented what the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) called “a major failure” by the authors of one JAMA study. CSPI claimed that JAMA “does not evaluate conflict of interest disclosures”. Authors “feel they can ignore the journal's policy with impunity”. CSPI called on JAMA and other medical journals to impose a 3-year ban on authors who breach conflict of interest rules. DeAngelis argues that JAMA's policies are sound and that she and her editors cannot act as a police force. She has been quoted as saying that her demand for independent statistical analysis of clinical trials is “costing us” in terms of papers and advertising. But a respected past editor of the NEJM, Jerome P Kassirer, has suggested that JAMA's procedures are “sloppy”. DeAngelis went on record to complain that her policies were being “misinterpreted, misrepresented, or misunderstood”. She expressed disappointment about the way her actions had been received. She is against sanctions, preferring instead to blame, name, and shame authors. It seems a little rich for JAMA to cry wolf at criticism. Every week the journal publishes critiques of others in its editorial pages. Now it is the turn of others to focus their attention on JAMA. That's simply fair comment. But JAMA and NEJM are not the worst offenders among journals. As a recent report in the Boston Globe pointed out, publications such as the American Journal of Cardiology thrive on close relations with pharmaceutical companies. Yet doctors don't seem to care. Why is that?

Credibility of Scientists: Industry versus Public Interest

In their article “Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists,” Barrow and Conrad (2006) demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the nuances of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972). They accurately pointed out that the act draws a distinction between conflicts of interest, which hinge on financial self-interest, and bias, which may exist for a host of reasons including research funding sources. Alas, in their haste to condemn public interest groups who wish the government would adhere to the letter and spirit of that law, Barrow and Conrad (2006) incorrectly characterized objections by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Environmenal Working Group (EWG) to two scientists nominated in December 2004 to sit on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory panel evaluating the risk of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (EWG and CSPI 2004). This misrepresentation may have helped prove their thesis, but it in no way reflects what is actually going on at the U.S. EPA, the National Academies, and other agencies that routinely form advisory panels. Barrow and Conrad (2006) suggested that the CSPI and the EWG challenged two scientists because they were “funded by industry.” In fact, there were nine industry-funded scientists listed as potential candidates for this panel. The two scientists singled out by the CSPI and the EWG currently or previously worked for DuPont or 3M, which have a direct financial stake in the outcome of the committee’s deliberations (EWG and CSPI 2004). Thus, these scientists were covered by the conflict of interest standard, not the bias standard. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972) states that scientists with conflicts of interest cannot serve on federal advisory committees unless their expertise cannot be recruited elsewhere. The EWG and CSPI (2004) suggested that there were other scientists available with the requisite expertise. The U.S. EPA must have agreed with this analysis, because the final panel announced in February 2005 (U.S. EPA 2005) did not include either scientist, although it did include two others with prior industry ties to whom the groups did not object. By contrast, only one scientist on the panel can be said to be “environmental” in orientation. Barrow and Conrad (2006) saw this panel as proof that public interest and environmental groups are seeking to tilt the playing field against industry. In fact, industry-funded scientists often play a dominant role on committees established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972). And, as in the PFOA panel case, those with financial support from industry usually outnumber by a two- or three-to-one margin those whose writings suggest they may be sympathetic to environmental or consumer interests (CSPI, in press). Barrow and Conrad (2006) concluded that industry scientists should be allowed to serve on advisory panels because “they can provide unique knowledge and insight concerning the chemical in question.” No doubt such scientists should be encouraged to present their data to a panel evaluating the health risks of a particular chemical. However, if they work full- or part-time for a company that makes, uses, or competes against the chemical, then allowing those scientists to sit on the panel would be the equivalent of allowing one side in a court case to name the jurors.

Conflicts of Interest: Owens’ Response

To clarify comments from Goozner and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), I would like to provide the pertinent facts on my compliance with EHP’s policy on competing financial interest disclosure. First, I was on loan or “seconded” from Procter & Gamble (PG the current manager, Andrew Wagner; and their manager, Robert Visser, as references for these points. Second, in this approximate period, I was a corresponding or contributing author on 11 relevant publications on assays that were either undergoing formal validation at the OECD or were being developed along similar lines for endocrine mechanisms (Ashby et al. 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004; Fang et al. 2003; Kanno et al. 2001, 2003a, 2003b; Owens and Ashby 2002; Owens and Koeter 2003; Owens et al. 2003; Yamasaki et al. 2003). In all cases but one, my P&G address was used. Third, the one exception involved the article questioned by Goozner (Yamasaki et al. 2003). Kanji Yamasaki of the Chemical Evaluation and Research Institute in Japan was the corresponding author in this case. Because work on this manuscript (Yamasaki et al. 2003) occurred while I was at the OECD, Yamasaki used the OECD affiliation when submitting the manuscript to EHP. I simply did not notice the affiliation. If I had, I would have changed it to use my P&G affiliation to be consistent with the other 10 publications during this period. Last, neither I nor P&G have any financial interest in the publications or their subject matter. Rather, this work was done to progress both development and validation work on safety tests that have potential for use to serve a diverse range of parties, including regulators, industry, and the public. Therefore, I do not see how allegations of a competing financial interest are valid in this case, even considering the oversight on the affiliation. I hope this fully clarifies the record on this matter and lays the CSPI allegations to rest.

Conflicts of Interest: Gulson’s Response

Vol. 112, No. 14 PerspectivesOpen AccessConflicts of Interest: Gulson’s Responseis accompanied byStudy on Failures to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in Environmental Health Perspectives Brian Gulson Brian Gulson Search for more papers by this author Published:1 October 2004https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.112-a796bAboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit We commend the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for their investigation into conflicts of interest statements in leading scientific and medical journals, but we take exception to our inclusion (Gulson et al. 2004) as an example of providing misinformation to EHP.Goozner’s sweeping statement that my colleague had previously received research funding, compensation, or stood to gain financially from Pasminco Ltd. is highly inaccurate. We received no research funding, compensation, or financial gain from the company to undertake this study. In fact, if Goozner had read even the abstract of our article, he would have noted that the findings were detrimental to the company, as the dominant source of lead in the environment and children probably derived from smelter emissions. Furthermore, the smelter closed in September 2003 and the company no longer exists. With respect to the association of my colleague, Karen Mizon, to her husband’s company and the (consulting) work undertaken for Pasminco Ltd., the work [an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide 25 accreditation assessment of the company’s on-site laboratory (ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission 1990)] was undertaken by the owner for the accreditation body while he was employed by a federal government research organization, and he was not paid for this audit.ReferenceGulson BL, Mizon KJ, Davis JD, Palmer JM, Vimpani G. 2004. Identification of sources of lead in children in a primary zinc–lead smelter environment. Environ Health Perspect 112:52-6014698931. Link, Google ScholarISO/International Electrotechnical Commission 1990. ISO Guide 25: General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories. 3rd ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesStudy on Failures to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in Environmental Health Perspectives1 October 2004Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 112, No. 14 October 2004Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 October 2004Published in print1 October 2004 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.

THE SKINNY ON TRANS FATTY ACIDS

DONUTS, COOKIES, CRACKERS, stick margarine, french fries, and other tasty treats contain significant amounts of trans fatty acids. For now, food producers aren't required to specify how much of these artery-clogging fats are present in their products. Instead, they are included in the line on nutrition labels. But injury the Food & Drug Administration decreed that as of Jan. 1,2006, manufacturers must break the trans fats category out of the total fat listing. FDA's action was prompted by the so-called food police, more formally known as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), based in Washington, D.C. Back in 1994, this nonprofit health-advocacy organization filed a petition urging the agency to require producers to list the amount of trans fat on nutrition labels. FDA gathered public comments and nutritional and health data as it considered CSPI's request. The agency relied particularly on a recent Institute of Medicine report on trans fats ...

Adoption of new guidelines and data requirements for more extensive neurotoxicity testing under FIFRA.

In 1987 the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and others petitioned EPA to, "issue testing methods necessary to fully assess the neurotoxic and neurobehavioral effects of pesticide active and inert ingredients." In response OPP convened a meeting of an expert subpanel on neurotoxicity of the Scientific Advisory Panel to review its proposed response. The petitioners proposed specifically that OPP use the neurotoxicity guidelines developed by EPA's own Office of Toxic Substances. They asserted that the scope of potential neurotoxic hazards is broad and that current guidelines will neither adequately identify nor characterize these effects. A series of expert panels have endorsed the use of more extensive neuropathological evaluations, better clinical examinations, explicit unconditioned and conditioned behavioral testing, testing of prenatally exposed animals for neurological deficits, and development of a means for evaluation of the broad range of potential neurotoxic effects. In response to this petition the following additions to the assessment of pesticides were proposed by OPP and approved by the SAP: expanded functional observation neuropathology, and motor activity into an acute and subchronic screening battery; addition of tests of operant behavior or other tests of sensory or cognitive function as conditional data requirements; and addition of a conditional requirement of postnatal neurofunctional and neuropathological evaluation of offspring.