Public Workspaces

Comment 5511
New (Unresolved)
Combined 173i51r1 ballot & JC memo.pdf (Revision 0)
Approval of 173i51r1 - caffeine
Comment Submitted by
Paula Brown
2015-05-19 14:43:13

The FDA has not set limits or given any direct ruling on the amount of caffeine that is allowed in products. This is not like the allowable levels of lead in drinking water or mercury in fish that a person can safely consume over a period of time without having a health risk. Is setting this arbitrary limit on caffeine really appropriate to be in Std 173?

NSF standards typically follow regulatory guidelines in establishing safe limits for chemicals or compounds in products. When regulatory limits are not available, a tox study is usually performed to determine the acceptable safe limits. Has a tox study on caffeine been performed and that is how the limits were arrived at?

I personally do nto have a problem with this limit as it is consistent with Health Canada but a colleague on the JC pointed out the following, which I thought I would pass along:

NSF standards are not regulatory documents unless adopted into federal or state laws (Std 61) or adopted by a recognized code authority whose codes are part of state or federal laws (Std 14). By placing these limits in an NSF standard, you open up NSF to a restraint of trade lawsuit ? Because of the limits, NSF refuses to certify a product with 300mg of caffeine in it. If the lack of NSF certification causes the client to lose business, a lawsuit can be instituted against NSF. Yes, standards and certifying organizations can and have been sued. NSF is not a regulatory body. These caffeine limits are not based on any current US federal or state regulation.

 

Submitter Proposed Solution