Food packaging

‘Forever chemicals’ have infiltrated food packaging on a wide scale

Posted by

0


Nearly 70 “forever chemicals”, also known as PFAS, are commonly found in materials that come into contact with food, some of which have been linked to negative health outcomes

Potentially hazardous chemicals may be in food packaging

Food packaging and utensils commonly contain up to 68 “forever chemicals” that carry possible health risks, with regulators potentially being unaware of the presence of many of them.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic chemicals that are used to produce goods such as non-stick cookware and waterproof clothing. The bonds between the carbon and fluorine atoms in PFAS are so strong that it can take hundreds to thousands of years for them to break down.

Many of these chemicals have been linked to harmful health outcomes, including cancer and reproductive and immune problems.

“There are thousands of these chemicals,” says Birgit Geueke at the Food Packaging Forum organisation in Switzerland. “We wanted to get a picture of what is known about the presence of PFAS in food packaging.”

Geueke and her colleagues analysed 1312 studies carried out around the world that detailed the chemicals that come into contact with food, which could occur during manufacturing, packaging or cooking. They then cross-referenced these chemicals to a list of known PFAS.

The team discovered that 68 PFAS are commonly found across materials that come into contact with food, such as packaging and cookware. Of these, 61 weren’t previously known to be present in such materials and therefore haven’t been included on regulatory lists that dictate the use of PFAS.

Just 39 of the 68 PFAS have been examined for toxicity. One of the substances that has been analysed is perfluorooctanoic acid, which is classified as possibly cancer-causing to people, based on limited evidence that it can cause testicular and kidney cancer, says Geueke.

“I think it should be the responsibility of the manufacturers to make sure that PFAS are used as little as possible,” she says. Regulators around the world are working in the right direction, she says.

For example, there was a recent proposal in the European Union to ban most PFAS. And in February, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that certain grease-proofing materials containing PFAS will no longer be sold for use in food packaging.

Public health experts recommend adding “exercise labels” to food packaging

Posted by

0


An expert in public health has recommended changing the current ‘traffic light’ food labels in order to let the public know how much exercise is required to burn off food and drink.

Shirley Cramer, the chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, suggested changing food packaging may help alter the public’s behaviour, allowing them to make healthier choices.

The current system shows fat content, saturated fat content, sugar, salt and carbohydrates, with green lights for good and red lights for bad.

However, there is still a degree of confusion around labelling, which was demonstrated by a study in 2015 which suggested that more than 40% of UK adults found them unclear.

Cramer’s idea is to use a group of symbols that can be recognised easily, such as brisk walking, running, cycling and swimming. These would be combined with a number so the public become aware of how long they’d need to do the relevant exercise. One such example is a can of Coca Cola®, which contains 139 calories, and would take around 35 minutes of brisk walking to burn off.

The idea is an interesting one, although any legislation would take several years to get off the ground because food labelling is currently decided at European level. However, there is a possibility that some manufacturers may decide to take up the idea voluntarily, and, if it is popular with the public, it may help it spread without legislation being required.

Food packaging health risk ‘unknown’.

Posted by

0


Plastic bottles
The health risks of chemicals in plastic bottles are the subject of some debate.

Scientists say “far too little” is known about the health risks of chemicals used in food packaging, and some could cause cancer.

Research is needed to understand the effect on the human body and embryonic development of at least 4,000 chemicals used in packaging, they said.

Links between packaging and obesity, diabetes and neurological diseases need to be explored, scientists warned.

But critics have said that the call is alarmist.

Scientists Jane Muncke, John Peterson Myers, Martin Scheringer and Miquel Porta called for an investigation into the health risks of food packaging in a commentary piece published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

‘Lifelong exposure’

They noted that chemicals such as formaldehyde, which they said can cause cancer, were used in many materials, such as plastics used for fizzy-drink bottles and tableware.

Substances could leach into food, and they added that the risks of “lifelong exposure” to such chemicals were not documented, said the researchers.

“Whereas the science for some of these substances is being debated and policymakers struggle to satisfy the needs of stakeholders, consumers remain exposed to these chemicals daily, mostly unknowingly,” they said.

But carrying out analysis would not be easy, they said, as there are no unexposed populations for comparison.

The call for research has attracted criticism.

Dr Ian Musgrave, senior lecturer in pharmacology at the University of Adelaide, said it was “very hard to take seriously” the claims that formaldehyde in plastic bottles could cause cancer.

He said it was present in many foods naturally, and to consume as much formaldehyde as that in an apple someone would have to drink “at least” 20 litres of plastic-bottled water.

Dr Musgrave added: “Obviously the concern about formaldehyde from food packaging is significantly overrated, unless we are willing to place ‘potential cancer hazard’ stickers on fresh fruit and vegetables.”

‘High levels of fat’

Jon Ayres, Professor of Environmental and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Birmingham, said the scientists painted an “alarmist” picture.

He said there was “no denying” that ingesting lower doses of some substances could “in principle” be harmful, but the issue was how to recognise and quantify any effect.

Prof Ayres added: “But can these effects really be anything other than modest at worst when few have been recognised to date?”

He said that simply calling for a different approach to the chemicals “does not really help”.

Dr Oliver Jones, lecturer at the RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, said: “More research is always welcome from a scientist’s point of view.

“But I would hazard a guess that the high levels of fat, sugar and salt in a lot of today’s processed food are more of a health concern than any migration of chemicals from the packaging.”