7 replies to this topic

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

 

I opened this topic after some unsuccessful researching for this OP –

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...g-crayonmarker/

 

I enclose 3 quotes to illustrate the nature of the problem -

 

 

[quote=KrisCraft;12916]a regular

  fine point marker... is this safe on a cookie? She showed me the "AP" certified mark on the pen showing that it is certified non-toxic...... I bought it and went home and checked my other X in my scrapbooking marker drawer and they ALL say AP Certified. QUOTE]

I was "dying" to know so I called X and asked if the ink was edible. Without heistation, the rep said "No. It is not approved for food use." Guess we got our answer! So Kris, your local cake decorating store is VERY WRONG to sell you a X for food use. Non-toxice and edible are two different issues.

Then I called Y and asked about their markers: "It is not a food product and is not FDA approved for food use."

 

 

http://www.cookiedec...as-food-writers

(post 18)

 

 

You need to tell people that these paints are not food safe and should not come in contact with food if you intend to eat it. If you decorate a tea or coffee cup the design must be at least an inch from the rim to avoid your lips coming in contact.

 

So … I read a statement from Z that their paint is completely non-toxic and safe. But I’ve read on several blogs that you should NOT use these paints for areas where food or drink will come in contact. I realize some paints are different, but if something like the Z  paint pens are permanent and non-toxic … how is it not safe to use the paint on a plate or glassware? Is everyone just being way too careful or am I missing something? To be fair, Z  says it’s paints are totally safe, but they also say it shouldn’t be used on the surface where food or drink contact. How can it be totally safe and non-toxic but unsafe to use with food? Can anyone explain?

 

 

http://www.goinghome...ain-paint-pens/

 

It would clearly be useful to scientifically  validate the meaning of terms like non-toxic / food-safe, and potentially a handful of other related terminologies such as XYZ Approved. And their inter-relationships.

 

I tried and failed to get anywhere substantial after googling / ploughing through a, mainly, mass of commercial offerings which, intentionally or otherwise, seemed to effectively sidestep such issues, at least in print.

 

Any offers ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

(PS - From memory, in US the specific classification of a Food Packaging Printing Ink being approved for food use by FDA does not exist.?)

[Snookie]

Interesting topic.  The cheese marking thread peeked my interest as well but have not had chance to explore topic.  I believe your correct about ink and FDA, but am a newbie so won't swear to it, until I can do further research.  But think this is also true for EU.  We all still have to do some testing to demonstrate safety, but inks are a challenge.  I look forward to doing some research and coming back to this topic. 

[fgjuadi]

http://info.nsf.org/usda/Listings.asp

 

If you actually read the certification letters next to the product, they are approved for use on meat and poultry

Edited by magenta_majors, 30 January 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[MWidra]

Nice article here on inks on packaging from a food safety perspective.  The FDA does not approve an ink from a supplier, but the components in the ink may be in the approved list of indirect additives.

 

http://www.foodsafet...and-compliance/

 

And the FDA page of information on color additives.  Paint to use on food would fall into this category.

 

http://www.fda.gov/F...ood/default.htm

 

Non-toxic is many times a consumer term that reflects that, when used as intended or as reasonably foreseen, it does not cause dangerous harm.  This would include paints and markers that children may use, and it would be expected that they may briefly put the marker into their mouth or ingest a small amount because of eating when some of the material was on their hands.  But the material is not tested in the quantities that would be ingested if it were in food.

 

Non-toxic is also an environmental term that means that it does not have a damaging effect to the environment.  The EPA in the US uses that term, though the ToxCast program is starting to be utilized by the FDA for their purposes as well.  We are moving towards a more global definition of these terms, but slowly.

 

Martha

[That Guy]

This topic brings back bad chemical control memories..... It has been a while since I dug into this topic but I remember being extremely confused while revising/creating our chemical control program a couple of years ago (before I found this forum). The chemicals we were using all said non-toxic or had similar statements and we used them correctly according to the labels, however they were not the correct items to use but I didn't know that until my mistakes were pointed out during a customer audit. The customer wanted us to use chemicals with NSF International approval and before then I had never even heard of NSF. 

 

 

It seems to me that rather than having a scientifically validated meaning of these terms, it would be better to have completely different terms when it comes to food, items intended for food use, and food-safe materials.

 

 

If an item is "food" or labeled "Intended for Food Use", wouldn't it be unnecessary to say it is non-toxic? (if your milk was labeled "non-toxic" what impression would that give.. non-toxic compared to what?). If it isn't "food" its acceptable and often necessary  to make a statement such as "non-toxic" (but one should consider non-toxic to what.. humans? fish? Plants?). Calling paint or ink non-toxic is considered to be acceptable or appropriate based on the manufacturers intended use and instructions, a marker is intended to be used for writing on paper, wood, plastic, etc. and is not toxic to the items it is used on or to people who may handle the item with the writing (ink) on it. The term  non-toxic is applied to far to many things for an accurate and concise definition.

 

But handling an item is entirely different than ingesting it, think of cosmetic items (which I know nothing about and may be using it as a bad example) Cosmetics are tested and proven to be non-toxic for its intended use (at least for rats and monkeys) and safe when used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. You can't use mascara to draw designs on your cake and then eat it (although I have seen people eat lip stick, but you get the point). The terms "non-toxic" and "safe" are applied to many different materials in many different industries, it all hinges on the items intended use and instructions for use. Flavorings used in food are safe to ingest when used correctly, but you can't pour yourself a glass of cinnamon flavoring to go with your Nacho Buffito.

 

"Safe" is not the same as "Food Safe" and "Food Safe" doesn't mean "edible". This is where the food industry could use some clarification and guidance.When talking about edible materials and inedible materials, should the same terminology be used?..Probably not, this is why we get confused. If you want a marker to draw on food with, then it should say "edible" in some form or another. If you want a container or material to store your edible food in/on then it should say "Food-Safe". 

 

People generally believe what they are told, every thing on the internet is true and most people don't read the warning labels or instructions for use. So even if there was a clear, concise, regulated definitions, people would still be unaware of its true meaning or just simply disregard it. And how often is "Non-Toxic" put on a materials packaging just as a marketing strategy? This is why it would be just as beneficial to regulate or change how and when non-toxic/food-safe terminology is used.

 

Could it, or should it be considered a false or misleading statement for some materials to be considered non-toxic?...I think this is were it comes back to the materials intended use and instructions for use.

[MWidra]

It seems to me that rather than having a scientifically validated meaning of these terms, it would be better to have completely different terms when it comes to food, items intended for food use, and food-safe materials.

 

Cody13, the world is slowly moving in that direction.  Just look at the progress in Hazard Communication that the GHS has brought about.  In the past, just the word "toxic" had different definitions on the labels of chemicals, depending on whether the term was from the US definition or the European definition (which used to be highly toxic for what the US called toxic.)  At least we got that labeling harmonized.

 

I foresee the food industries moving towards a harmonization as well.  Just as the UN spearheaded the GHS, I think that the UN's FAO will eventually bring the world's food regulatory agencies together.  But this is not going to be easy, so I'm not holding my breath.  People have a more visceral response to their food being fiddled with than their chemicals (pun intended.)  It may happen in my lifetime, lol.

 

We can only hope.

 

Martha

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

I think the answer to the OP can now be stated as NO, but with some caveats. At least for USA/UK.

 

Logically this topic should probably be analysed in terms of “additive” regulatory requirements but, curiously, this aspect seems to hardly discussed  in  the consumer domain at all. The “relationship”, if any,  is considered at the end of this post.

Based on the previous posts I  did some more searching and it appears that, for USA, and possibly UK also the property of being “non-toxic” is commonly (invariably?)  self-defined by the seller. And, possibly, similarly, for “food-safe” also although certain industries do claim some specific FDA “license” to use this term  (see examples later). I have so far been unable to verify these claims.

 

So, from a scientific POV, at least one of the 2 terms has no validation at all and the other seems to be questionable.   Some bases for these 2 conclusions are given below.

 

Non-toxic

 

For USA I noticed this  –

 

The "non-toxic" claim implies that a product, substance, or chemical will not cause adverse health effects, either immediately or over the long-term. However, there are no specific standards for the "non-toxic" claim.

http://www.greenerch...bel=non%2Dtoxic

(contains an impressively detailed analysis of the term’s usage although lacking cross-links to verify)

(source was -

http://blog.honest.c...c-really-mean/#

 

and for the UK, as an official example –

As a general rule, only ‘edible’ glitters and dusts can be applied to food for consumption.

It is important to note that glitters and dusts described as ‘non-toxic’ are not the same as products labelled ‘edible’ and should not be eaten. Only ‘non-toxic’ glitters that have been tested for safety for contact with food, can be applied to food for decoration, but not for consumption. They should be labelled ‘For food contact’ (or alternative wording to indicate their use) and include instructions for use. Food businesses should be aware that glitters and dusts that meet the requirements of the food contact materials legislation have not been approved for consumption.

Other ‘non-toxic’ glitters and dusts that have not been tested for contact with food, and are not labelled ‘For food contact', should not come into contact with food.

 

http://tna.europarch.../edibleglitter/

 

Food-Safe

 

A clear definition of “food-safe” has so far proven elusive. I saw these 2 US examples but no cross- links are given so difficult to check –

 

Part of the confusion is that both types are made of HDPE, a material that is designated as "food safe" by the FDA. Food safe  means it can come in contact with the food you eat and you will be safe. Food safe is OK for a wide variety of kitchen uses but not necessarily for long term storage. That is where food grade comes in.

http://www.rainsauce...-and-food-grade

(LINK WORKING 2023.Charles.C)

 

And this –

 

Legal Definition

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the legal entity that oversees food safety regulations and standards. They set limits and tolerance levels for chemicals and additives. With respect to ceramic glazes: a glaze that contains lead and cadmium can be fired and the food container surface can legally classified as "food safe" if it meets leach test standards. Basically, leach test involve placing an acetic acid food (lemons, tomato juice) on a glazed surface and measuring the chemical changes to the food before and after the test period. If the amount of lead, cadmium or other heavy metals emitted measure less than the standards set by the FDA, then the glaze may be labeled as "food safe."

So, if a product label features the phrase "Food Safe" that means the fired glaze meets the FDA guidelines.

http://www.maycocolo...ood-safe-glazes

                           

A EC industry viewpoint of “food-safe” is here –

http://www.europeanc...-does-safe-mean

(LINK WORKING 2023.Charles.C)

The content is interesting but IMO ambiguous from a technical POV.

(a food-safe toilet roll is certainly an interesting product !).

 

Overall, IMO, “non-toxic” is  more of a Labelling device than a FS statement.  “Food-safe” is inconclusive.

 

Additives

 

Possible relationships to additive requirements are suggested in  -

 

(1) A US example of  the type of product which  may actually interest  the (original) OP’s cheese  interest is here –

http://www.thomasnet...roved-95953436-

 

The problem  is that no info. is given as to the basis of the claimed “FDA Approved” label,  ie relevant verification is not possible by the reader.

Such marker products may well come under some direct  “additive classification”  but I have failed to confirm the resulting significance if any.. Compulsory FDA approval perhaps ?

 

(2) I found it remarkable that AFAI could see, none of the “cake” type posts in the many US-net-based threads mentioned “additive”. I  can only assume that the majority of consumers are simply unaware of any sub-text and  trust a  “non-toxic” labelling statement despite the reservations expressed in various confectionary forums.

 

(3) I tried the FDA-links in post #4 and this sub-link looked potentially relevant to the marker’s approved FDA status but I’m only guessing.

http://www.fda.gov/F...s/ucm228269.htm

(LINK WORKING 2023.Charles.C)

 

(4) Some of the advertizing seems “almost” misleading. I noticed some marker products described as certified for “direct food contact”. The actual meaning was  equipment surfaces involved in direct food contact.

 

(5) I tried the search function derived from post #2 .  I’m guessing that a related NSF approval is likely to be under 2A or 2C. There were 1-2 hits for 2A,C which, in one case, looked like deriving from the same company as also supplied the Confectionary area. The cross-linked pdf included this statement –

 

This product is acceptable for use as a marking crayon (2C) for marking meat and poultry food products.

 

Useful for meat and poultry, but what is the scope of the above text (and NSF itself for that matter, does it include cheese, ie dairy??), eg can only use for raw material, not finished RTE product ? Both? (presumably the answer lies somewhere within depths of  USDA).

 

NSF state that their certification mark means –

 

Recognized by regulatory agencies at the local, state, federal and international level, the NSF certification mark means that the product complies with all standard requirements

.

Well yes, OK, but what does that actually mean? Additive requirements ??

 

Net result (1-5) – any direct additive connection / regulation so far undetermined.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[MWidra]

 

 

Useful for meat and poultry, but what is the scope of the above text (and NSF itself for that matter, does it include cheese, ie dairy??), eg can only use for raw material, not finished RTE product ? Both? (presumably the answer lies somewhere within depths of  USDA).

 

NSF state that their certification mark means –

 

.

 

All of this is compounded in the US by the fact that the USDA and the FDA both regulate food, but different items.  Their philosophy is even a bit different as well.  The USDA regulates meat, poultry,dairy and eggs but not egg products. 

 

NSF is primarily interested in USDA approval and gives approval to products for food contact or food area use.  The USDA has a list of additives that can be used, and some of them are expressed as proprietary mixtures, not individual chemicals.  The USDA is not only interested in how it could cause physical or health harm, but also if an additive could harm the consumer by changing the intrinsic nature of the product.  That could be either to fool the consumer that what they are buying is something other than what it is, or by diluting out the important material to the point that it no longer is what they think.  So if someone pumps a lot of flour water into some chicken, it weighs more but you're not buying chicken anymore.

 

The FDA has their lists (very extensive) of what is allowed as an additive to be put into food and what can come in contact with food.  That is a list of chemicals, it's up to the manufacturer to figure out if the approved or banned chemicals are contained in what they want to put into/against the food.  It's a more simplistic approach, but it is harder to figure out if what you want to use is OK because there is no approval for commercially available additive products that are a mixture.

 

And neither of those have a list of "toxic" products, which is what the OP was asking about.  They say that something is approved or banned and leave it at that.  If you put in something that's not allowed, it's adulterated and no good.  Don't need a reason, it's just bad.

 

OSHA and the GHS "Purple Book" define what is defined as "toxic."  Even says how this definition is to be performed.  https://www.osha.gov...om/ghs.html#3.2

 

The EPA also has a way to classify things as "toxic" in one way or another.  That's the only places I have seen toxic well defined. 

 

I think that the general public wants to have a label put on something that does not change, but it's not that easy.  What is good for one thing is poison for another. 

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Martha