The quest for Freedom of Information
![]()
Since 1999, the Food Intolerance Network has asked Food Standards Australia
New Zealand (FSANZ) repeatedly, both directly and through Federal and State
Ministers for Health, for the scientific evidence upon which approval of food
additives is based.
The response has been to be fobbed off in every case, usually in patronising terms that advise that proper scientific
assessments have been carried out, so "don't you worry about that".
Therefore the Food Intolerance Network, on behalf of its thousands of
members, has commenced a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) process from
FZANZ. The FOI request is aimed at
* propionates
(280-283), the common bread preservative recently extended to
several other food classes, which has been proven to cause learning and
behaviour problems in children; and
* ribonucleotides
(627, 631, 635), a new flavour
enhancer in many savoury products and even butter,
which has been reported to cause severe itchy skin rashes in many people.
The approval process for agricultural and veterinary chemicals includes a
full publication of the evidence that was assessed in granting or otherwise
approval for the particular chemical, crop and pest combination. This
transparency is in marked contrast to that displayed by FSANZ, which regulates
additions to products that we all eat every day of our lives but provides no
public evidence.
Below you can see the exchange of correspondence as it develops. Use
the <Back button on your internet browser to return to this page after
viewing each letter.
FIN: Original request 1st August 2003.
FSANZ: Formal
responses 13th August 2003
and 15th August 2003.
FSANZ: Request for evidence that
the request is "in the public interest" 4th September 2003.
FIN: Evidence of the public interest 15th September 2003.
FSANZ: Accepting public interest 29 September 2003.
FSANZ: Referring to another agency
for earlier papers 14 October 2003.
FSANZ: Some 300 pages of general
information covering all food additives and without any specific scientific
evidence was provided 28 October 2003. This will be assessed and comments
provided here on the website soon. Note that the Department of Health and
Ageing, who oversee the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC),
who were responsible before ANZFA and FSANZ existed, has not had the FOI
request formally transferred to them.
FIN: Assessment of first FSANZ FOI
information and response to FSANZ 18 November 2003.
Propionates appear to have last been reviewed in 1973, and nucleotides in 1974
and 1993. As FIN said, "It is hard to believe that science has not
advanced in the 10-30 years since these various reviews were done".
FSANZ: Final response 27 November 2003 is
"that these documents do not exist" and then, later in the letter
"currently available toxicological data supports the safe use of propionic acid ….and ribonucleotides".
Extraordinary!
FIN: What FIN has been asking for
some years, and in this very FOI request, is to see
the "currently available toxicological data" which FSANZ now claims both
not to exist and to support the safe use of these additives! Kafka come home. FIN concluded 11 December 2003 that FSANZ has reviewed the
Food Standards Code for propionates and ribonucleotides
without considering any scientific evidence, in breach of the FSANZ Act, and
that FSANZ continue to believe that the absence of evidence is evidence of
absence of effects from these additives, in the face of numerous consumer
reports of such effects.
FIN: Formal request to
NHMRC: On
FIN: Letter to State and Federal
Ministers alerting them to the absence of the required scientific data on 2 July 2004.
Responses in order
|
State |
Commonwealth |
NSW |
QLD |
VIC |
SA |
WA |
TAS |
NT |
ACT |
NZ |
|
Acknowledged |
3 |
5 |
6 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
4 |
|
Responded |
2 |
8 |
9 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
10 |
1 |
5 |
You can view Minister’s responses here (in two files for faster
downloads) Minister1
Minister2.
The States and Commonwealth have obviously worked together in making
their various responses. My summary of their responses is:
·
“All new food additives undergo a
rigorous safety assessment” BUT we have no evidence to support this for these
two additives.
·
“Attention is given to all new data”
BUT there is no data for these additives. An absence of evidence is taken as
evidence of absence.
·
“These are naturally occurring
metabolites so there is no need to test them” BUT there are many such chemicals
that affect people (eg Vitamin A, iron, ricin from castor oil) if used inappropriately.
·
“Evidence is anecdotal” BUT
observation and anecdote is the very start of good science, not a dismissal.
·
“JECFA have evaluated these
additives as safe” BUT without scientific evidence. What was their unlimited approval
based upon? Check http://www.inchem.org/
This is what we are left with:

We look forward to bringing you more evidence ….the saga continues
Last update
![]()