Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soluble Fiber From Certain Foods and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease, 47828-47829 [E8-18863]
Download as PDF
47828
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. FDA–2008–P–0090] (formerly
Docket No. 2006P–0393)
Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soluble
Fiber From Certain Foods and Risk of
Coronary Heart Disease
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the
provisions of the interim final rule (IFR)
that amended the regulation authorizing
a health claim on soluble fiber from
certain foods and risk of coronary heart
disease (CHD), to add barley betafiber as
an additional eligible source of betaglucan soluble fiber. FDA is taking this
action to complete the rulemaking
initiated with the IFR.
DATES: This final rule is effective August
15, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jillonne Kevala, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–830), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–
3835, 301–436–1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of February
25, 2008 (73 FR 9938), FDA published
an IFR to amend the regulation in part
101 (21 CFR part 101) that authorizes a
health claim on the relationship
between soluble fiber from certain foods
and CHD (§ 101.81), to include barley
betafiber as an additional eligible source
of beta-glucan soluble fiber. Under
section 403(r)(3)(B)(i) and (r)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(3)(B)(i) and
343(r)(7)), FDA issued the IFR in
response to a petition filed under
section 403(r)(4) of the act. On June 20,
2006, Cargill Inc. (the petitioner),
submitted a health claim petition to
FDA requesting that the agency expand
the ‘‘Soluble fiber from certain foods
and coronary heart disease’’ health
claim (§ 101.81) to include barley
betafiber as an eligible food ingredient
source of beta-glucan soluble fiber. The
petitioner requested that FDA grant an
IFR by which foods containing barley
betafiber could bear the health claim
prior to publication of the final rule.
Section 403(r)(3)(B)(i) of the act states
that the Secretary of Health and Human
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Aug 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Services (and, by delegation, FDA) shall
issue a regulation authorizing a health
claim if he or she ‘‘determines, based on
the totality of publicly available
scientific evidence (including evidence
from well-designed studies conducted
in a manner which is consistent with
generally recognized scientific
procedures and principles), that there is
significant scientific agreement, among
experts qualified by scientific training
and experience to evaluate such claims,
that the claim is supported by such
evidence.’’ (See also § 101.14(c).)
Section 403(r)(4) of the act sets out the
procedures that FDA is to follow upon
receiving a health claim petition.
Section 403(r)(7) of the act permits FDA
to make a proposed regulation issued
under section 403(r) effective upon
publication pending consideration of
public comment and publication of a
final regulation if the agency determines
that such action is necessary for public
health reasons. FDA filed the petition
for comprehensive review in accordance
with section 403(r)(4) of the act on
September 28, 2006.
As part of its review of the scientific
literature on barley betafiber and CHD,
FDA considered the scientific evidence
presented in the petition as well as
information previously considered by
the agency on CHD risk reduction and
the effects of beta-glucan soluble fiber
containing food ingredients on lowering
serum total and low density lipoprotein
(LDL) cholesterol. The agency
summarized this evidence in the IFR (73
FR 9938 at 9941 to 9943). Based on the
available evidence, FDA concluded that
barley betafiber, like the other whole oat
and barley products listed in
§ 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A), lowers serum total
and LDL cholesterol. Consequently,
FDA amended § 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A) to
broaden the health claim to include
barley betafiber as an additional eligible
source of beta-glucan soluble fiber.
II. Summary of Comments and the
Agency’s Response
FDA solicited comments on the IFR.
The comment period closed on May 12,
2008. The agency received five letters of
response, three from consumers, one
from academia, and one from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. One
consumer comment and the comment
from academia supported the IFR. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky advised the
agency that FDA’s ruling on the health
claim would not adversely affect the
State’s actions or conflict with any State
laws. The remaining consumer
comments addressed issues that are
outside the scope of this rulemaking and
will not be addressed here.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Given the absence of contrary
evidence on the agency’s decisions
announced in the IFR, FDA is adopting
as a final rule, without change, the IFR
that amended § 101.81 to include barley
betafiber as an additional eligible source
of beta-glucan soluble fiber.
III. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the
final rule under Executive Order 12866
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104–4). Executive Order 12866
directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity). The agency
believes that this final rule is not a
significant regulatory action under the
Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because this final rule allows
new voluntary behavior and imposes no
additional restrictions on current
practices, the agency certifies that the
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written
statement which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits before
proposing ‘‘any rule that includes any
Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.’’ The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $127,000,000,
using the most current (2006) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. FDA does not expect this final
rule to result in any one-year
expenditure that would meet or exceed
this amount.
FDA received no comments relevant
to economic impact. The costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives analyzed in the IFR (73 FR
9938 at 9944 and 9945) are adopted,
without change, in this final rule. By
now affirming that IFR, FDA has not
imposed any new requirements.
Therefore, there are no additional costs
and benefits associated with this final
rule.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.32(p) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
FDA concludes that the labeling
provisions of this final rule are not
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget because they
do not constitute a ‘‘collection of
information’’ under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). Rather, the food labeling health
claim on the association between
consumption of barley betafiber and
reduced risk of coronary heart disease is
a ‘‘public disclosure of information
originally supplied by the Federal
Government to the recipient for the
purpose of disclosure to the public’’ (5
CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
VI. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13132. FDA has
determined that the rule will have a
preemptive effect on State law. Section
4(a) of the Executive order requires
agencies to ‘‘construe * * * a Federal
statute to preempt State law only where
the statute contains an express
preemption provision or there is some
other clear evidence that the Congress
intended preemption of State law, or
where the exercise of State authority
conflicts with the exercise of Federal
authority under the Federal statute.’’
Section 403A of the act (21 U.S.C. 343–
1) is an express preemption provision.
Section 403A(a)(5) of the act provides
that ‘‘* * * no State or political
subdivision of a State may directly or
indirectly establish under any authority
or continue in effect as to any food in
interstate commerce—* * * any
requirement respecting any claim of the
type described in section 403(r)(1) made
in the label or labeling of food that is
not identical to the requirement of
section 403(r). * * *’’
On February 25, 2008, FDA published
an IFR which imposed requirements
under section 403(r) of the act. This
final rule affirms the February 25, 2008,
amendment to the existing food labeling
regulations to add barley betafiber to the
authorized health claim for soluble fiber
from certain foods and CHD. Although
this rule has a preemptive effect in that
it precludes States from issuing any
health claim labeling requirements for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Aug 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
barley betafiber and reduced risk of
CHD that are not identical to those
required by this final rule, this
preemptive effect is consistent with
what Congress set forth in section 403A
of the act. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act
displaces both State legislative
requirements and State common law
duties (Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct.
999 (2008)).
FDA believes that the preemptive
effect of this final rule is consistent with
Executive Order 13132. Section 4(e) of
the Executive order provides that ‘‘when
an agency proposes to act through
adjudication or rulemaking to preempt
State law, the agency shall provide all
affected State and local officials notice
and an opportunity for appropriate
participation in the proceedings.’’ On
December 12, 2007, FDA’s Division of
Federal and State Relations provided
notice via fax and e-mail transmission to
State health commissioners, State
agriculture commissioners, food
program directors, and drug program
directors, as well as FDA field
personnel, of FDA’s intent to amend the
health claim regulation authorizing
health claims for soluble fiber from
certain foods and CHD (§ 101.81).
In addition, the agency sought input
from all stakeholders through
publication of the IFR in the Federal
Register on February 25, 2008. FDA
received one comment from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, which
noted that FDA’s ruling on the health
claim would not adversely affect the
State’s actions or conflict with any State
laws.
In conclusion, the agency believes
that it has complied with all of the
applicable requirements of Executive
Order 13132 and has determined that
the preemptive effects of this rule are
consistent with the Executive order.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101
Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 101 is
amended as follows:
I
PART 101—FOOD LABELING
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending § 101.81 that was published
in the Federal Register of February 25,
2008 (73 FR 9938), is adopted as a final
rule, without change.
I
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47829
Dated: August 7, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. E8–18863 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 94
[Public Notice: 6320]
RIN 1400–AC45
Procedures for Children Abducted to
the United States; Interim Final Rule
Department of State.
Interim final rule with request
for comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This interim final rule
amends regulations regarding incoming
parental abduction cases pursuant to the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction.
Incoming cases will be processed by the
United States Central Authority (USCA),
the Office of Children’s Issues in the
Bureau of Consular Affairs within the
U.S. Department of State or an entity
designated by the USCA.
DATES: This rule is effective August 15,
2008.
The Department will accept written
comments from the public through
September 15, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 1400–AC45, by either
of the following methods:
• Electronic comments: Submit
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Address all written
submissions to Corrin M. Ferber, CA/
OCS/PRI, U.S. Department of State,
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 4th
Floor, Washington, DC 20037, fax 202–
736–9111.
Instructions: Please submit one copy
of your comments by only one method.
All submissions must include the
agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) identification
above for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Corrin M. Ferber, CA/OCS/PRI, U.S.
Department of State, Room 4039, 2201
C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520;
telephone: (202) 736–9172 (this is not a
toll free number). Hearing-or speechimpaired persons may use the
Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf (TDD) by contacting the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1–800–
877–8339.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47828-47829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18863]
[[Page 47828]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0090] (formerly Docket No. 2006P-0393)
Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soluble Fiber From Certain Foods
and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is adopting as a final
rule, without change, the provisions of the interim final rule (IFR)
that amended the regulation authorizing a health claim on soluble fiber
from certain foods and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), to add
barley betafiber as an additional eligible source of beta-glucan
soluble fiber. FDA is taking this action to complete the rulemaking
initiated with the IFR.
DATES: This final rule is effective August 15, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jillonne Kevala, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of February 25, 2008 (73 FR 9938), FDA
published an IFR to amend the regulation in part 101 (21 CFR part 101)
that authorizes a health claim on the relationship between soluble
fiber from certain foods and CHD (Sec. 101.81), to include barley
betafiber as an additional eligible source of beta-glucan soluble
fiber. Under section 403(r)(3)(B)(i) and (r)(7) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(3)(B)(i) and
343(r)(7)), FDA issued the IFR in response to a petition filed under
section 403(r)(4) of the act. On June 20, 2006, Cargill Inc. (the
petitioner), submitted a health claim petition to FDA requesting that
the agency expand the ``Soluble fiber from certain foods and coronary
heart disease'' health claim (Sec. 101.81) to include barley betafiber
as an eligible food ingredient source of beta-glucan soluble fiber. The
petitioner requested that FDA grant an IFR by which foods containing
barley betafiber could bear the health claim prior to publication of
the final rule.
Section 403(r)(3)(B)(i) of the act states that the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (and, by delegation, FDA) shall issue a
regulation authorizing a health claim if he or she ``determines, based
on the totality of publicly available scientific evidence (including
evidence from well-designed studies conducted in a manner which is
consistent with generally recognized scientific procedures and
principles), that there is significant scientific agreement, among
experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate
such claims, that the claim is supported by such evidence.'' (See also
Sec. 101.14(c).) Section 403(r)(4) of the act sets out the procedures
that FDA is to follow upon receiving a health claim petition. Section
403(r)(7) of the act permits FDA to make a proposed regulation issued
under section 403(r) effective upon publication pending consideration
of public comment and publication of a final regulation if the agency
determines that such action is necessary for public health reasons. FDA
filed the petition for comprehensive review in accordance with section
403(r)(4) of the act on September 28, 2006.
As part of its review of the scientific literature on barley
betafiber and CHD, FDA considered the scientific evidence presented in
the petition as well as information previously considered by the agency
on CHD risk reduction and the effects of beta-glucan soluble fiber
containing food ingredients on lowering serum total and low density
lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The agency summarized this evidence in
the IFR (73 FR 9938 at 9941 to 9943). Based on the available evidence,
FDA concluded that barley betafiber, like the other whole oat and
barley products listed in Sec. 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A), lowers serum total
and LDL cholesterol. Consequently, FDA amended Sec.
101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A) to broaden the health claim to include barley
betafiber as an additional eligible source of beta-glucan soluble
fiber.
II. Summary of Comments and the Agency's Response
FDA solicited comments on the IFR. The comment period closed on May
12, 2008. The agency received five letters of response, three from
consumers, one from academia, and one from the Commonwealth of
Kentucky. One consumer comment and the comment from academia supported
the IFR. The Commonwealth of Kentucky advised the agency that FDA's
ruling on the health claim would not adversely affect the State's
actions or conflict with any State laws. The remaining consumer
comments addressed issues that are outside the scope of this rulemaking
and will not be addressed here.
Given the absence of contrary evidence on the agency's decisions
announced in the IFR, FDA is adopting as a final rule, without change,
the IFR that amended Sec. 101.81 to include barley betafiber as an
additional eligible source of beta-glucan soluble fiber.
III. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because this final rule allows new voluntary
behavior and imposes no additional restrictions on current practices,
the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $127,000,000, using the most current (2006) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
final rule to result in any one-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
FDA received no comments relevant to economic impact. The costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives analyzed in the IFR (73
FR 9938 at 9944 and 9945) are adopted, without change, in this final
rule. By now affirming that IFR, FDA has not imposed any new
requirements. Therefore, there are no additional costs and benefits
associated with this final rule.
[[Page 47829]]
IV. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(p) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
FDA concludes that the labeling provisions of this final rule are
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because
they do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Rather, the food
labeling health claim on the association between consumption of barley
betafiber and reduced risk of coronary heart disease is a ``public
disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government
to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public'' (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2)).
VI. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule
will have a preemptive effect on State law. Section 4(a) of the
Executive order requires agencies to ``construe * * * a Federal statute
to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express
preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the
Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of
State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under
the Federal statute.'' Section 403A of the act (21 U.S.C. 343-1) is an
express preemption provision. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act provides
that ``* * * no State or political subdivision of a State may directly
or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to
any food in interstate commerce--* * * any requirement respecting any
claim of the type described in section 403(r)(1) made in the label or
labeling of food that is not identical to the requirement of section
403(r). * * *''
On February 25, 2008, FDA published an IFR which imposed
requirements under section 403(r) of the act. This final rule affirms
the February 25, 2008, amendment to the existing food labeling
regulations to add barley betafiber to the authorized health claim for
soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD. Although this rule has a
preemptive effect in that it precludes States from issuing any health
claim labeling requirements for barley betafiber and reduced risk of
CHD that are not identical to those required by this final rule, this
preemptive effect is consistent with what Congress set forth in section
403A of the act. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act displaces both State
legislative requirements and State common law duties (Riegel v.
Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008)).
FDA believes that the preemptive effect of this final rule is
consistent with Executive Order 13132. Section 4(e) of the Executive
order provides that ``when an agency proposes to act through
adjudication or rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall
provide all affected State and local officials notice and an
opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.'' On
December 12, 2007, FDA's Division of Federal and State Relations
provided notice via fax and e-mail transmission to State health
commissioners, State agriculture commissioners, food program directors,
and drug program directors, as well as FDA field personnel, of FDA's
intent to amend the health claim regulation authorizing health claims
for soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD (Sec. 101.81).
In addition, the agency sought input from all stakeholders through
publication of the IFR in the Federal Register on February 25, 2008.
FDA received one comment from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which noted
that FDA's ruling on the health claim would not adversely affect the
State's actions or conflict with any State laws.
In conclusion, the agency believes that it has complied with all of
the applicable requirements of Executive Order 13132 and has determined
that the preemptive effects of this rule are consistent with the
Executive order.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101
Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
101 is amended as follows:
PART 101--FOOD LABELING
0
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending Sec. 101.81 that was
published in the Federal Register of February 25, 2008 (73 FR 9938), is
adopted as a final rule, without change.
Dated: August 7, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-18863 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S