Sassafras root illegal to sell? (long)
Wubba
was illegal to sell now and a fellow named Garry did some impressive
research.
Interesting info to say the least.
Wubba
**************
[cross-posted from misc.rural to us.legal.]
***************************
R Bishop <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Isn't it now illegal to sell sassafras?
***************************
Garry, gne...@ithaca.com posted his info:
Sassafras being illegal struck me as odd, so I just took a look around the
net.
One of the things I found is that sassafras has been placed on the Drug
Enforcement Administration's "watch" list, because people have attempted to
get high from it. But as one net.reviewer says, "it made me over-sensitive,
jumpy, and irritable." Sounds like when I try to drink coffee. "Watch list"
means that it isn't yet lumped in with opium by the DEA -- sassafras isn't
illegal under the drug-abuse laws. At this time.
However, it seems sassafras has run headon into the (in)famous Delaney
Clause. The Delaney Clause (in 21 U.S.C. 348,
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/348.html) was enacted by Congress in 1958 and
says that "no [food] additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to
induce cancer when ingested by man or animal."
A food additive in turn is defined to be any "component ... of any food ...
if not ... adequately shown ... to be safe". See
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/321.html. I note with interest that
pesticides,
food coloring, and animal drugs are defined by fiat in the law not to be
"food additives", and that all "dietary supplements" are defined by fiat not
to contain any food additives. And with saccharin, I note with amusement in
348 that Congress didn't define it away, but instead imposed a "moratorium"
-- which they have so far extended eight times by law.)
Now the prime reason that the Delaney Clause is infamous is that it is
absolute. No exception to the law is to be made even if the chances of
someone actually getting cancer from the substance are truly infinitesimal.
It is also interesting that if the substance is a "food", as opposed to a
"food component", the Delaney Clause (and the government) does not much care
whether it causes cancer. Peanut butter is an example. The words "food
additive" are perceived to be Bad, whereas the words "natural food" are
perceived to be Good.
Finally now getting to the point, with respect to sassafras, a
government-report timeline at http://www.cnie.org/nle/pest-5.html says:
1961 - A scientific committee appointed by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare finds that safrole, a natural component
of sassafras, is a weak hepatic (liver) carcinogen. Immediate action
is taken under authority of the Delaney Clause to stop the use of
safrole and oil of sassafras in root beer, sarsaparilla and other
beverages and foods
I.e., looks like under the FDA law sassafra root (where the safrole is)
cannot be sold as a "component" of food. And you're not allowed to squeeze
the juice out of it. However, you probably can eat it whole all you want.
Note, net.rumor says that black pepper and mace also contain safrole, but
have not prohibited under the Delaney Clause. Presumably black pepper has a
bigger political constituency than sassafras.
Also note, "One glass of beer is about 14 times more carcinogenic than one
glass of root beer flavored with sassafras. One glass of wine is about 23.5
times more carcinogenic." (See www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=118015636.2) If
you pour the wine into your cookpot, it's a "food component", a food
component which is assuredly "cancer-causing". But again, alcohol probably
has a much bigger political constituency than sassafras.
Various past net postings have reported sassafras root being sold with a
"not
fit for human consumption" label, to avoid the Delaney Clause.
> Heck, I grew up on the stuff but I remember there was some big
>hoopla quite a while ago.
In 1961, looks like. Net.rumor says there was a new sassafras study in 1993,
too.
Garry