On March 7, ABA filed its comments to FDA in response to the Agency’s tentative determination regarding partially hydrogenated oils. Thanks to great collaboration within the ABA FTRAC and by other ABA members’ input during the consensus process, the association developed thoughtful, robust comments that address critical issues for bakers and emphasized the tremendous work bakers have accomplished through voluntary efforts to reformulate out of trans.
In its comments, according to CRB Direct, ABA noted that bakers face unique challenges in removing remaining low levels of trans fat containing PHOS from certain bakery products. Additionally, ABA pointed out the flaws in FDA’s tentative determination including the Agency’s required burden of proof and the need for legal standard to rebut statutory presumption that PHOs are safe. ABA argued that FDA had failed to account for probable consumption levels of trans fat, as well as inaccurately took into account cumulative effect of trans fat.
ABA also noted that the Agency failed to establish that current GRAS uses of PHOs are not safe and that the FDA’s tentative determination is at odds with other countries’ trans fat policies what could create trade barriers. Currently, there is a lack of regulatory parameters/single standard for PHO versus a fully hydrogenated oil, and ABA called for a definition by FDA. The agency received over 1,400 comment letters on this complex issue.
To view the full ABA comment, click here.
Click Here to read Baking Business.com’s article on ABA’s response.