With the vast majority of food contact chemicals lacking adequate safety data, researchers from the Food Packaging Forum Foundation are calling for a group-based assessment strategy – identifying 38 priority chemical groups and releasing two new tools to support regulatory decision-making.
Scientists have proposed a new approach to help regulators and manufacturers identify potentially hazardous chemicals used in food packaging, kitchenware and other food contact materials.
The peer-reviewed study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, examined more than 15,000 food contact chemicals and found that 87 percent lack sufficient safety data to assess their potential health effects. The researchers, from the Food Packaging Forum Foundation, argue that assessing chemicals individually is no longer sufficient given the scale of the data gaps.
The study identified 1,222 food contact chemicals already known to be hazardous to human health, while more than 13,000 others lack sufficient publicly available information to establish whether they are safe for consumers.
The researchers therefore propose grouping chemicals according to their chemical structures. This could allow substances that are structurally similar to known hazardous chemicals to be prioritised for further testing, regulatory review or potential phase-out.
38 priority groups identified
Using the grouping approach, the researchers identified 38 priority chemical groups containing a high proportion of substances already associated with health hazards.
These include ortho-phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), alkyl phenols, organophosphates, isocyanates and primary aromatic amines.
In total, 4,222 food contact chemicals fall within the 38 priority groups. The researchers say this does not mean that all of these substances are known to be hazardous. Rather, their structural similarity to chemicals with established hazards means they may warrant greater scrutiny, particularly where safety data are lacking.
Addressing ‘regrettable substitutions’
The approach is also intended to help prevent so-called ‘regrettable substitutions’, where a restricted or phased-out chemical is replaced with a structurally similar substance that has not been adequately assessed.
One example is bisphenol A (BPA), which has been replaced in some applications by alternatives including bisphenol F (BPF). The researchers argue that replacing a known hazardous substance with a similar but insufficiently tested chemical may fail to address the underlying health concern.
Replacing known hazardous chemicals with very similar but insufficiently tested alternatives is not solving the problem.”
Dr Helene Wiesinger, Scientific Communication Officer, Food Packinging Forum.
The authors suggest that group-based assessment could reduce the number of individual regulatory processes required while allowing regulators and manufacturers to prioritise chemicals most urgently requiring additional investigation.
Tools aim to support decision-makers
Alongside the study, the researchers have made available the FCCprio List, an evidence-based list of known hazardous food contact chemicals, and FCCgroup, an interactive tool designed to identify whether chemicals belong to one or more of the 38 priority groups.
“Today’s regulatory approaches in Europe and North America look at each chemical individually, but this is inefficient and does not sufficiently protect consumers,” said Jane Muncke, Managing Director and Chief Scientific Officer at Food Packaging Forum and a co-author of the study. ”We are proposing an evidence-based grouping approach decision makers can already use now until the proper testing methods and testing data become available.”
The researchers argue that combining chemical grouping with improved testing and greater transparency could help regulators and industry identify risks more efficiently and reduce the likelihood that hazardous substances are replaced with alternatives that have not been adequately assessed.
No comments yet