(8 of 9)
Even those who favored approval acknowledge that olestra could result in some nasty surprises. The University of Illinois' Chassy, for example, is still concerned about the fat's effect on carotenoids. As long as olestra is limited to snack foods, he thinks it probably won't cause major problems. But he's not absolutely certain. "Three or four years from now," he says, "we might want to review olestra again."
Many experts believe that if Kessler decides to give the go-ahead to olestra, he may stipulate just such a re-evaluation. That's what happened in 1993, when the FDA approved BST, Monsanto's genetically engineered hormone that boosts milk production in cows. It required the company to report back in two years on the chemical's effects. As Kessler puts it, "There is this notion that up until the day we approve a product, the food or drug or device is unsafe. And all of a sudden, the day we approve a product, it's safe forever more. That's not the way science gets the data."
Part of the anti-olestra faction's upset stems from the nature of the FDA's mandate. As Kessler reminded the panelists several times during the proceedings, their only task was to decide whether they were reasonably certain that olestra was harmless. Says the commissioner: "It was very important to me to make sure that everyone on that advisory committee understand that framework. The questions were not, 'Does this product make sense? Does this product contribute to the nutritional health of the nation?' That is not the standard."
But maybe it should be. Panelist Henry Blackburn, a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, thinks federal standards aren't stringent enough. "Drugs have to produce evidence of benefit, but food supplements do not," he points out. He is also troubled by the fact that the FDA has no money to do its own studies and thus has to rely almost entirely on research done by the petitioners. cspi's Jacobson too is concerned that responsibility for demonstrating a food's safety is shifting to the wrong hands. He notes, "Judging from the FDA's handling of olestra, it appears that to prevent approval, there would have to be absolute proof that a food additive is harmful. It shifts the burden of proof from the company to the public." He also points out that several panel members have worked as consultants to the food industry. (The FDA counters that representatives from industry add important expertise to the committee, and that those with conflicts of interest are required to recuse themselves.) And he wants the FDA to stop cooperating with corporations to get all their petitions approved; instead, he says, the agency should simply reject poorly prepared applications out of hand.
Do Americans really want more protection than they already have from food additives? Or would they rather be free to make their own choices? While Kessler hasn't tipped his hand, it's likely that under the current law, he'll probably have to let P&G bring fat-free fat to market and let consumers decide its fate. Chef John Folse, who runs a food-products company as well as his restaurant, thinks he already knows the answer. "If people have the option of going to the grocery store and choosing from 10 oils, one of which is olestra," he predicts, "olestra will fly off the shelves."