The following is a shortened version of FPF’s comment. 

FPF supports the proposed regulation, emphasizing that it aligns with the risk assessment conducted by EFSA. Over 100 scientific studies corroborate the migration of BPA from various FCMs, posing risks to human health. 

We commend the EU Commission for its inclusive approach, targeting all bisphenols with current and future harmonized classifications. However, we suggest expediting assessments for all bisphenols lacking harmonized classifications and advocate for a comprehensive group-wide restriction to enhance human health protection. 

Urging swifter action to mitigate health risks associated with BPA exposure, we recommend significant reductions in transition periods and the establishment of clear sunset dates of maximum five years for the prohibition of BPA-containing FCMs. This is supported by the economic burden associated with BPA-related health care costs (FPF reported). 

Sufficiently sensitive analytical methods are lacking to quantify BPA at exceedingly low levels. FPF urges the Commission to develop advanced detection methods. It is important to provide guidance to business operators and Member States on analytical chemistry methods and safe thresholds for BPA migration. 

The proposed regulation omits specific FCMs despite evidence of BPA migration. We advocate for broader coverage to minimize BPA exposure and caution against exemptions for recycled materials such as paper and PET beverage bottles. We value stronger protective measures to uphold public health, particularly within the framework of promoting circularity and minimizing resource usage. 

Track other opportunities to contribute to regulations on food contact chemicals and materials on the Food Packaging Forum’s consultations page.

References 

Food Packaging Forum (March 8, 2024) �?/span>FPF feedback on restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials.�?European Commission. 

European Commission (February 9, 2024) �?/span>Food safety �?restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials.�?/span> 

Both studies sampled from the same 36 food contact articles purchased in the US, UK, South Korea, Germany, and Norway and made of common polymers including high- and low-density polyethylene (HDPE, LDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyurethane (PUR), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).  

Stevens led the study characterizing the chemical make-up of the articles which varied considerably between polymer types and even individual samples. The samples were placed in methanol which can extract chemicals from the plastic into solution. When dehydrated, the resulting chemical mixture is placed in a mass spectrometer to try and distinguish the number of chemicals present. The results from the mass spec are called a chemical feature. Several “features�?may represent a single chemical, but the measurement still allows for comparisons of chemical complexity. The number of chemical features ranged from 37 in one HDPE container to 9,936 from a sample of PVC cling film.  

When samples were grouped by polymer, the number of chemical features per polymer was distinctly different, “with a gradient ranging from HDPE (616 features), PET (1320), PS (2284), PP (2711), LDPE (5495), and PVC (12,683) to PUR (13,004).”�?PVC and PUR “require more additives in their production compared to other polymers�?(FPF reported). Non-targeted studies, like this one, can help to discover the broad range of chemicals intentionally and non-intentionally used in plastics production.   

Extracts from all the articles were tested for endocrine-disruption and metabolism-disruption, with 33 out of 36 interfering with at least one receptor. The more chemicals in the polymer, the greater the effect, “chemicals present in food packaging made of PVC, PUR, and LDPE induced most effects, whereas the extracts of HDPE, PET, and PP were less active.�?/span> 

McPartland, et al. further investigated individual food contact chemicals as well as the chemical mixtures extracted from PVC and PU to discover any effects on G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). GPCRs are a critical part of cell communication. When a message (which can be a hormone, a neurotransmitter, or something else) arrives at a cell, it attaches to a GPCR on the cell surface which will then send a signal inside the cell, telling it what to do. There are thousands of different GPCRs.  

The authors found that both PVC and PUR extracts can activate the tested GPCRs. This finding “reinforces existing evidence that PUR and PVC plastics are chemically problematic and should be substituted with safer alternatives.�?/span> 

Both studies found that polymer complexity, and thus the mixtures of chemicals that come out, increased biological activity. McPartland et al. conclude, “[a] fundamental reconsideration and redesign of the way we make and use plastics are imperative if plastics are to be considered safe. By adopting strategies that reduce the number and hazard of chemicals used in plastics, we can minimize exposure and reduce their contribution to the burden of disease.�?/span> 

FPF’s Chief Scientific Officer, Jane Muncke, together with 20 other scientists recently published a vision for safer food contact materials that discusses some of the same concerns (FPF reported). Muncke et al. developed the six clusters of disease concept, which highlights prevalent and increasingly concerning non-communicable diseases linked to chemical exposures: cancers, cardiovascular diseases, as well as reproductive, brain-related, immunological, and metabolic disorders. The vision proposes a novel approach for testing Food contact chemicals that includes assessing the health impacts of individual food contact chemicals and real-life mixtures with respect to the most prevalent non-communicable diseases in the human population. �?/span> 

References 

McPartland, M., et al. (2024). �?/span>Beyond the Nucleus: Plastic Chemicals Activate G Protein-Coupled Receptors.�?Environmental Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c08392 

Stevens, S., et al. (2024). �?/span>Plastic Food Packaging from Five Countries Contains Endocrine- and Metabolism-Disrupting Chemicals.�?Environmental Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c08250 

Read more 

Katherine Bourzac (March 19, 2024). �?/span>Plastic food packaging contains thousands of chemicals, study finds.�?Chemical and Engineering News.  

Traditionally, regulatory agencies like EFSA and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have relied heavily on industry-funded studies conducted under standardized protocols, often overlooking findings from academic research. However, EFSA’s recent reassessment of BPA adopted a more comprehensive approach, incorporating both industry and academic research in a transparent manner. 

The article scrutinizes the rationale behind the resistance of agencies like the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and FDA to EFSA’s revised TDI for BPA. By identifying the flaws in their assumptions and advocating for the integration of 21st century scientific methods into regulatory frameworks, the authors seek to foster a more rigorous and collaborative approach to chemical risk assessment. 

The opposition to EFSA’s revised TDI for BPA raises questions about the adequacy of existing regulatory practices in addressing emerging concerns related to endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), the scientists argue. While industry-funded studies have historically shaped risk assessments, the exclusion of non-guideline academic research may overlook critical evidence on these chemicals.  

The authors strongly endorse EFSA’s revised risk assessment of BPA, citing the strong scientific evidence on the chemical’s hazardous and endocrine disrupting properties on human health and environment at even very low concentrations, and hope that EFSA’s new risk assessment sets a new precedent for other regulatory agencies to “bring rational, science-based chemical regulation into the 21st century.�?/span> 

Reference 

Frederick S. vom Saal et al. (2024) �?/span>The conflict between regulatory agencies over the 20,000-fold lowering of the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for bisphenol A (BPA) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).�?Environmental Health Perspectives. 

The barrier properties that food packaging requires to withstand or hold onto water, grease, and gases, while maintaining food freshness are almost exclusively obtained via the application of multiple plastic coatings, applied via hot melt lamination or dispersions and emulsions. Plastic coatings also confer heat sealability to paper and board. According to M & Mme Recyclage, because of the additives, inks, and adhesives, it is misleading to label such materials as 100% natural or plastic free. 

Due to the coatings, functionalized paper and board currently qualify as single use plastics in the EU according to the single-use plastics directive (SUPD, FPF reported).  

Barrier properties can also be obtained by grafting organic and inorganic chemicals to the cellulose fibers. Among these, PFAS have been used to impart grease protection though many jurisdictions are phasing out PFAS in food contact applications (FPF reported). The Food Packaging Forum recently published a scientific study reviewing data gaps about the PFAS that have been measured in food contact articles (FPF reported). Alternative chemical barriers exist, but are not industrialized yet, or are pending approval for food contact. 

During recycling, paper and board “are sorted into over 30 different categories�?based on inks, coatings, softness, etc. Additionally, the relatively-hidden plastic means the paper either cannot or should not be composted though many consumers may not realize it (FPF reported, also here). Some negative environmental impacts may be reduced when using paper-based packaging compared to single use plastics, but reusable items generally have lower impacts than either single-use paper or plastics when regularly returned (FPF reported).  

To reduce waste generation and protect the environment the authors recommend reuse over single use paper-based packaging, and suggest policy changes including a ban on PFAS and plastic-based coatings, as well as the prohibition of overly simplistic marketing claims related to environment (FPF reported). 

Learn more about paper and board packaging with the Food Packaging Forum fact sheet. Or, compare the impacts and many packaging materials with the Understand Packaging Scorecard.  

References 

M & MME Recyclage (February 2024). �?/span>Functionalisation of paper and cardboard: How to make paper/cardboard impervious for packaging?�?Rethink Plastic Alliance. (pdf) 

Read more 

ZWE (February 2024). �?/span>What’s inside food-contact paper packaging? Plastic.”�?/span> 

On March 19, 2024, a peer-reviewed scientific article providing an overview of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food packaging and other food contact materials was published in Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T). In this article, Drake Phelps and authors from the Food Packaging Forum summarize evidence from 47 scientific studies that analyzed PFAS in different food contact articles. In addition, the availability of hazard information and biomonitoring data is illustrated by combining multiple data sources into a Toxicological Priority Index (ToxPi) score. 

Based on data from the FCCmigex database, 68 PFAS have been identified in migrates and/or extracts of food contact articles. Overall, paper and board has been the most commonly studied FCM in this evidence map, with 72.5% of the PFAS-related database entries referring to this material. However, PFAS have also been identified in food packaging made of plastic and coated metals. 

The presence of 61 of these PFAS in food contact materials (FCMs) is unexpected as they are not included in any regulatory or industry inventories of chemicals used during manufacture. According to the contact chemicals database (FCCdb), the remaining seven PFAS appear on material-specific regulatory or industry lists, i.e., they are or have been intentionally added during manufacture of FCMs (perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, CAS 335-67-1), GenX (CAS 13252-13-6), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS, CAS 375-73-5), ADONA (CAS 958445-44-8), bisphenol AF (CAS 1478-61-1), bis(N-ethyl-2-perfluorooctylsulfonaminoethyl) phosphate (CAS 30381-98-7), and N-methylperfluorobutane sulfonamidoethanol (CAS 34454-97-2)).  

Some of these PFAS have been found in material types for which their use has not been indicated (e.g., bisphenol AF is listed for use in rubber, but has been found in plastics and coated metals). 

Only 39 (or 57%) of the PFAS have been tested for their potential hazards in the sources examined, and these data are often incomplete, underscoring the lack of understanding. This also means that 43% of the PFAS do not have any hazard data in the investigated sources. Most hazard data are available for PFOA, followed by several other perfluorocarboxylic acids. In vivo toxicity and ecotoxicity data mainly exist for PFOA, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (CAS 1763-23-1), perfluorobutanoic acid (CAS 375-22-4), and 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (CAS 647-42-7). 27 of the 68 PFAS have been detected in human samples according to the results of national human biomonitoring studies. 13 of these PFAS have also been shown to migrate from FCMs into foods, which indicates the possible contribution of FCMs to human exposure to PFAS. 

The results of the study illustrate the diversity of PFAS in FCMs and that the pertinent knowledge gaps reveal how difficult it is to assess and manage the risks of individual PFAS. In combination with the known hazard properties and high persistence of PFAS, these findings underscore the urgency of adopting a group restriction approach to PFAS, implying that all PFAS are banned from use in food contact materials. Such measures are crucial for safeguarding human health and protecting the environment from the harmful effects of these persistent chemicals. 

Such calls for action have already been taken up by regulators in Denmark (FPF reported) and several US states (FPF reported here, here, and here). On February 28, 2024, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that manufacturers will voluntarily phase out the use of PFAS as grease-proofing agents in paper and paperboard food packaging. In the EU, a recent provisional agreement on the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) included a ban on PFAS in food packaging (FPF reported).  

Reference 

Phelps DW, Parkinson LV, Boucher JM, Muncke J, and Geueke B (2024). �?/span>Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food packaging: Migration, toxicity, and management strategies.�?Environmental Science & Technology. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.3c03702 

Read more 

US FDA (March 28, 2024). �?/span>FDA announces PFAS used in grease-proofing agents for food packaging no longer being sold in the U.S.�?/span> 

The report synthesizes available information on hazards, functionalities, use, presence, production volumes, and regulatory status of chemicals used in the production of or present in plastics. The collected information on all chemicals is publicly accessible within the associated PlastChem database. It was co-authored by an international team of independent scientists including from the Food Packaging Forum and led by partners at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). 

According to the research, over 16,000 chemicals are known to be present in plastic materials and products, with less than 6% of them currently subject to global regulations. For nearly 4,000 plastic chemicals, their annual production volumes exceed 1,000 tons. “These findings highlight that there is a significant global governance gap and enforce the urgency for action under a global plastic treaty,�?the authors state.  

Further, the research identifies significant knowledge gaps. Over 10,000 chemicals lack comprehensive hazard information, which “[…] underscores the urgent need for more transparent information on plastic chemicals�?identities, functionalities, production volumes, and their presence in plastics […].�?/span> 

The authors apply a hazard-based strategy to classify and prioritize plastic chemicals and polymers for management and assessment. The four hazard criteria used are persistence, bioaccumulation, mobility, and toxicity. Over 4,200 chemicals were classified as “of concern�?based on these criteria �?more than 1,300 of those are being intentionally added to plastics during the manufacturing process.  

Based on all the gathered evidence, the authors developed three key principles to guide effective action on plastic chemicals and polymers of concern: (1) the precautionary principle, (2) a full life-cycle approach, and (3) independent evidence. Additionally, the report concludes with policy recommendations that run under four themes: (1) regulate plastic chemicals comprehensively and efficiently, (2) require transparency on plastic chemicals, (3) simplify plastics towards safety and sustainability, and (4) build capacity to create safer and more sustainable plastics. 

During the public launch event that took place on March 14, 2024, hosted by the Geneva Environment Network, the authors shared first-hand insights into the results and methodology of the research. The recording can be freely accessed on the event website. 

Reference 

Wagner, Martin, et al. (2024). �?a href="//dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10701706" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">State of the science on plastic chemicals – Identifying and addressing chemicals and polymers of concern.�?NTNU Open. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10701706

Read More 

PlastChem Project (2024). Project website. 

Geneva Environment Network (March 14, 2024). �?/span>Launch and Panel Discussion | State of the Science on Plastic Chemicals: Identifying and Addressing Chemicals and Polymers of Concern.�?/span> 

According to the Parliament’s press release, some of the main points agreed at this time concerning food contact applications include: 

• Ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food packaging 
• Reduce packaging
  • 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035 and 15% by 2040, with a specific focus on reducing plastic packaging waste 
  • Ban packaging unprocessed fresh produce by 2030 (FPF reported) 
  • Require reusables when food or drink consumed within a restaurant by 2030 
  • No individual packaged portions of condiments by 2030 
• Support reuse and refill  
  • At least 10% reusable beverage packaging by 2030 (except milk, wine, and spirits) 
  • 10% of takeaway food and drinks in reusable packaging by 2030; consumers can bring their own container to restaurants 
  • Access to tap water in reusable or refillable formats 
• Structure waste management 
  • Single use plastic and metal beverage containers in separate deposit-return systems (FPF reported) 
  • Recycled content targets for plastic packaging (FPF reported) 
  • Recyclability and recycling targets by weight 

The PPWR negotiation process has been the most lobbied (FPF reported), and most contentiously lobbied (FPF reported) proposed policy in the EU’s history. Packaging production, use, and waste touches on many sectors with differing ideas on the direction the Union should take (FPF reported).  

In late February 2024, the European Parliament adopted stricter rules for the management of plastic waste, banning export to non-OECD countries and creating stricter rules for export to non-EU OECD countries. The combined changes in PPWR recycling targets and plastic waste shipments may bring considerable change to the waste management systems in Europe over the next few years.  

References 

European Parliament (March 4, 2024). �?/span>Deal on new rules for more sustainable packaging in the EU.”�?/span> 

European Parliament (February 27, 2024). �?/span>Waste shipments: MEPs adopt tougher EU rules.”�?/span> 

JRC researchers used a life cycle assessment-based (LCA) approach to evaluate the environmental impacts from food contact article production to end-of-life. The assessments were grounded in a broad array of data collection and analyses, including factors like the number of reuses, transport distances, energy mix, and end-of-life waste management. For each factor, JRC ran a sensitivity analysis to check assumptions and the importance each played in the final, summary impact score. The LCA’s scoring incorporated more than greenhouse gas emissions and water use but also ozone depletion potential, cancer and non-cancer related human toxicity, acidification, and ten other impacts.   

JRC investigated five scenarios:�?/span> 

1. Takeaway beverage cup �?Single-use paper cup with a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) lining and polystyrene (PS) lid vs. multiple-use polypropylene (PP) cup.�?/span>

• • Summary score: multiple-use had lower or tied score with single-use in 70% of simulations 
  • Differentiating factors: single-use had lower impact scores in the three resource-use related categories, but multiple-use scored better in the other impacts 

2. Take-away packaging �?2a) Single-use cardboard tray with LDPE lining vs. multiple-use PP clamshell tray.�?b) Single-use aluminum tray with LDPE lined carton cover vs. multiple-use PP clamshell tray.

• • Summary scores: multi-use and single-use were comparable in both 2a and 2b in the main analysis. 
  • Differentiating factors: when JRC removed passenger cars from the model, for people making trips to return reusable items, the impacts of the multiple-use item were significantly lower. Removing passenger cars is closer to what might be feasible in a dense urban area. 

3. Beverages, bottled (0.5 L) �?3a) Single-use aluminum can vs. multiple-use PET bottle with PP cap. 3b) single-use glass bottle vs. multiple-use glass bottle (thicker). 

• • Summary scores: 3a) multi-use plastic bottle had lower or tied impact score with single-use aluminum in 80% of simulations. 3b) multiple-use glass had a lower impact score in 95% of simulations compared to single-use glass. 

4. Beverages, wine (0.75 L) �?Single-use glass wine bottle vs. multiple-use glass wine bottle (thicker).�?/span>

• • Summary score: reusable glass had lower impact scores for all categories except land use.

5. Dine-in restaurant �?Single-use hamburger meal with LDPE-lined carton cup and unlined carton trays for burger and fries multiple-use hamburger meal with PP plate for hamburger & fries and a PP cup.�?/span>

• • Summary score: multiple-use packaging had a lower impact score in nearly every metric in 90% of simulations  
  • Differentiating factors: significantly lower impacts of reusables since there is no need for the consumer or organization to transport the container. Despite the water needs for washing in the reuse process, water use impacts were lower for reusables due to high levels of water use when making paper. 
    

The results of JRC’s analysis were first presented in September 2023 (FPF reported) with final publication planned for November 2023. However, after the organization received more input from the industry it delayed the publication to incorporate this information.   

As part of HORIZON EUROPE, the EU recently funded STOPP, Strategies to prevent and reduce plastic packaging pollution from the food system. The research project will run through 2026 with the goal to �?/span>create circular strategies for plastic usage and processing�?while also generating “awareness campaigns within a multi-actor network that involves profiles from every stage of the food packaging value chain.�?/span> 

To make LCA comparisons between even more materials, the Understanding Packaging (UP) Scorecard is a free, web-based tool to assess human and environmental health impacts of foodware and food packaging products. The UP Scorecard is being developed by Single-Use Materials Decelerator (SUM’D), a non-profit coalition made up of leading food service companies, non-profit and civil society organizations including FPF, and technical experts. As the only packaging tool that is freely available, the UP Scorecard includes an impact assessment for chemicals of concern present in and migrating from food packaging. 

References 

Sinkko, T., et al. (February 20, 2024). �?/span>Exploring the environmental performance of alternative food packaging products in the European Union.�?European Commission. DOI:10.2760/971274 

Horizon Europe (January 1, 2024). �?/span>Strategies to prevent and reduce plastic packaging pollution from the food system.�?European Commission 

STOPP (February 7, 2024). �?/span>STOPP: strategies for food plastic packaging circularity.�?Recycling Magazine 

Phthalates 

Phthalates are a group of additives usually mixed into polymers to increase softening and flexibility. Additives that do this are known as plasticizers. In recent years phthalates, and some of the plasticizers used to replace them, have been under increasing scrutiny for causing adverse health effects including behavioral development, reproductive toxicity, and cardiovascular diseases (FPF reported, here and here).  

On February 6, 2024, Leonardo Trasande of NYU Grossman School of Medicine and more than 15 other co-authors published a study investigating the relationship between 20 phthalate metabolites and gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth length, and birthweight for gestational age. They “also estimated attributable adverse birth outcomes and associated costs.�? 

Using a large sample size of 5006 mother–child pairs, the authors found that di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP, CAS  117-81-7), diisodecyl phthalate (DiDP, CAS 26761-40-0), diisononyl phthalate (DiNP, CAS 28553-12-0), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP, CAS 117-84-0) “were [all] associated with decreased gestational age and increased risk of preterm birth.�?When extrapolated to the entire US population, this is equivalent “with 56,595 preventable preterm birth cases�?annually.  

Cost concerns are often highlighted as a reason why potentially hazardous chemicals may not be adequately replaced in food contact and other products. Thus, Trasande et al. went a step further by calculating the costs of these preterm births to the US health system. They found that “[t]he lost economic productivity and additional medical care costs due to phthalate-induced preterm births in 2018 alone ranges between $1.63 billion and 8.14 billion.�? 

This is in addition to the estimated $250 billion disease burden and costs of plastics in the US annually, published earlier this year (FPF reported).  

All five of these phthalates, and many others, have been detected in food contact materials according to the Food Packaging Forum’s database on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals (FCCmigex). DEHP is the most well-studied of the phthalates in food contact materials and has been under the most pressure to be replaced. Trasande’s and other studies (FPF reported) demonstrate how looking at chemicals one at a time can lead to regrettable substitution.   

Organophosphate esters  

OPEs are used to substitute brominated flame retardants and, like ortho-phthalates, may also act as plasticizers. These chemicals can transfer into a developing fetus from the placenta and umbilical cord.  

On January 24, 2024, Jiwon Oh of the University of California Davis and co-authors published their investigation of birth outcomes from gestational OPE exposure in Environmental Health Perspectives. From a very large sample size of 6,646 pregnancies in the ECHO program, Oh et al. investigated nine OPE biomarkers in urine and their association with gestational length and birthweight.  

More than 85% had detectable biomarker levels for dibutyl phosphate (DBUP, CAS 107-66-4), di-isobutyl phosphate (DIBP, CAS 1189-24-8), and bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (CAS 77236-72-7) in their urine.  

Higher levels of DBUP, DIBP, and bis(butoxyethyl) phosphate (CAS 14260-97-0) were linked with a greater chance of early birth. While a combined metric of DBUP, DIBP, and greater levels of bis(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (CAS 3040-56-0) were problematic for female babies. However, three OPEs were linked with higher birthweights which may indicate obesogenic effects.  

OPE exposure has been linked to neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption (FPF reported). Paper packaging can be a source of these OPEs (FPF reported). In July 2023, researchers tentatively identified 42 OPEs in Chinese takeaway packaging (FPF reported), while extensive contamination in Chinese foodstuff has also been documented (FPF reported).  

References 

Trasande, Leonardo, et al. (2024). �?/span>Prenatal phthalate exposure and adverse birth outcomes in the USA: a prospective analysis of births and estimates of attributable burden and costs.�?The Lancet. DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00270-X 

Oh, Jiwon, et al. (2024). �?/span>Associations of organophosphate ester flame retardant exposures during pregnancy with gestational duration and fetal growth: The environmental influences on child health outcomes (ECHO) program.�?Environmental Health Perspectives. DOI: 10.1289/EHP13182 

Read more 

Sandee LaMotte (February 6, 2024). �?/span>Foods we eat are covered in plastics that may be causing a rise in premature births, study says.�?CNN 

Erin Prater (February 7, 2024). �?/span>Plastic-linked ‘hormone-disrupting chemicals�?were potentially behind 10% of U.S. preterm births in 2018, according to new research. How families can steer clear of their danger.�?Fortune

These findings generated considerable media coverage across Germany (e.g., here, here and here) as MnHxP is a metabolite of di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHxP, CAS 84-75-3), a substance of very high concern (SVHC) due to its reprotoxicity. In 2020, DnHxP was included in the EU REACH authorization list, essentially banning it in the EU unless one has special permission for its use. Since no applications for authorization were submitted, the detection of MnHxP was not anticipated and is a cause for concern due to its toxicity.  

Analyses of samples retained from a study in 2017/18 showed that fewer children were affected in previous years (26% compared to 61% in 2020/21). The average MnHxP concentration was 0.28 μg/l in 2017/18, compared to 2.09 μg/l in 2020/21.  

“It’s a problem on a larger scale,” said Marike Kolossa-Gehring, head of section toxicology and health related environmental monitoring at the German Environment Agency (UBA). Currently, additional human samples are being analyzed for MnHxP to understand time-trends and duration of exposure. Initial results show that MnHxP is detected in a significant proportion of the samples, which indicates widespread human exposure. 

The exact sources of exposure to MnHxP in humans are currently unknown. One hypothesis under investigation is whether a UV filter used in sunscreen (diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate, DHHB, CAS 302776-68-7) has been contaminated with DnHxP, but other sources are being discussed. 

According to FPF’s FCCmigex database, DnHxP can sometimes be found in food contact materials (FCMs), such as packaging items made of polylactic acid (PLA), adhesive labels used on fruits and vegetables, PET bottles, and take-out food containers made of polypropylene, polystyrene, and paper. However, DnHxP is not authorized for use in plastic FCMs in the EU and a 2022 amendment of the food additive regulation in the US removed its authorization for food contact use (FPF reported). Since many other phthalates have been shown to migrate from FCMs into foods, it can be expected that FCMs contribute to human exposure to MnHxP.  

References 

LANUV (2024). �?/span>Bestimmung von Schadstoffen und Schadstoffmetaboliten im Urin von 2- bis 6-jährigen Kindern aus Nordrhein-Westfalen.�?(pdf, in German) 

UBA (2024). �?/span>Fund eines Weichmachers in Urinproben �?Fragen & Antworten.�?(in German) 

BfR (2024). �?/span>MnHexP in Urinproben: Erste Einschätzungen zu gesundheitlichen Wirkungen.�?(pdf, in German) 

Akoueson, F. et al. (2023). �?/span>Additives in polypropylene and polylactic acid food packaging: Chemical analysis and bioassays provide complementary tools for risk assessment.�?Science of The Total Environment. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159318 

Hou, H. et al. (2021). �?/span>Occurrence and migration of phthalates in adhesive materials to fruits and vegetables.�?Journal of Hazardous Materials. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126277 

Li, H. et al. (2018). �?/span>Phthalate esters in bottled drinking water and their human exposure in Beijing, China.�?Food Additives & Contaminants B. DOI: 10.1080/19393210.2018.1495272 

Han, Y. et al. (2021). �?/span>Widespread occurrence of phthalates in popular take-out food containers from China and the implications for human exposure.�?Journal of Cleaner Production. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125851 

Read more 

ARD Tagesschau (February 3, 2024). �?/span>Weichmacher in zahlreichen Urinproben.�?(in German) 

The European Conservative (February 5, 2024). �?/span>Germany Finds Increasing Levels of Long-Banned Substance in Humans, Including Children.”�?/span> 

Deutschlandfunk (February 8, 2024). �?/span>Umweltbundesamt hat Sonnenschutzmittel als Quelle für hohe Konzentration eigentlich verbotener Weichmacher im Urin im Verdacht.�?(in German) 

WDR (February 14, 2024). �?/span>Hier und heute.�?Interview with Sonja Kolonko (start at 13:15 and 1:32:00, in German) 

DAZ (February 26, 2024). �?/span> Was man über Weichmacher in Kinderurin weiß �?und was nicht.�?(in German) 

RTL (February 28, 2024). “Weichmacher-Skandal: Neue Spur führt zu UV-Filter in Sonnencremes.“ (in German) 

The positive list is divided into three documents: polymers, additives, and essential monomers each with relevant details including chemical name in Japanese and English, CAS registry numbers, and use requirements. The updated list and any changes in requirements will go into effect on June 1, 2025.  

According to reporting from Enhesa, MHLW plans to publish an FAQ on the website in the future. 

On January 24, 2024, the Japanese Joint Article Management Promotion-consortium (JAMP), an industry consortium to facilitate transfer of chemical information through the supply chain, published the third edition of a discussion paper on the management of chemical substances in products compatible with the circular economy. The discussion paper covers all articles, not only those in food contact, but does have sections with guidelines concerning the recycling of articles made of plastic, metal, and paper, as well as for reusable materials.

References 

MHLW. �?/span>About the positive list system for food utensils, containers and packaging (from June 1, 2025).�?(in Japanese) 

JAMP (January 24, 2024). “Management of chemical substances in products compatible with circular economy discussion paper, 3rd edition.” (in Japanese)

Read more 

Lam Lye Ching (December 11, 2023). �?/span>Japan publishes positive list of FCMs.�?Enhesa 

Lam Lye Ching (January 8, 2024). �?/span>Japan publishes positive list for food contact materials in English.�?Enhesa 

Lam Lye ching (February 9, 2024). “Japan updates discussion paper covering chemical risk management in circular economy.” Enhesa

Once agreed upon, the text from the final trilogue will need to be confirmed by the involved committees during their last meeting in April and also within the Parliament�?/span>s last scheduled plenary session at the end of April. The EU’s general parliamentary elections are scheduled in June, and there is a fear that changes in Parliament members following the elections may jeopardize reaching a final agreement.

From setting reduction targets and banning specific chemicals to bolstering reuse systems, the PPWR’s scope is broad and has attracted record levels of criticized lobbying from private sector stakeholders (FPF reported). These PPWR discussions are being described by many as increasingly political with individual EU member states and small groups of voting political parties refusing agreement on some aspects without first getting concessions on others. There are even recent reports of some member states, including Italy and Germany, considering an alliance to entirely block further progress in developing the new regulation. 

Trilogue Steering Note 

In a steering note released just after the February 16th trilogue meeting, the Belgian presidency of the Council of the European Union developed 18 sets of wide-ranging compromise options for negotiators to consider ahead of the final trilogue meeting on March 4th. It also references a separate updated version of the four-column draft document containing proposed texts from the three institutions and consensus text when possible. However, FPF did not have access to this document when developing this article. Notably, the steering note urged negotiators to address the topics of: 

• Restricting PFAS: The steering note proposes not allowing the presence of PFAS in packaging above set limits of 25 ppb for single PFAS, 250 ppb for a group of PFAS measured as a targeted sum, and 50 ppm for the sum of all PFAS (including polymeric ones). This proposal is in line with the wording and limits proposed in the parallel ongoing process under EU REACH to restrict PFAS across many applications (FPF reported). 
• Specific reduction measures for plastic waste: The steering note recommends negotiators support the inclusion of a new provision (Article 38(1b)) to “reduce the plastic packaging waste generated per capita, as compared to the plastic packaging waste generated per capita in 2018�?with targets and timelines to be set by negotiators. 
• Reuse obligations: Previous draft text shows clear disagreement with proposed reuse targets for food and beverage articles. While increasing reuse targets up to 80% by 2040 are supported by the European Commission and the Council, the European Parliament proposed to remove all such requirements entirely. The steering note states that “it is highly likely that we will have to find a horizontal derogation clause allowing certain economic operators to be exempted from the re-use and recharging obligations.�?/span> 

Other proposed compromise options within the steering note cover the topics of home composting, interoperability of deposit return schemes, and restriction of certain packaging formats. As this process is moving quickly behind closed doors, proposal text in these draft versions may have even already been internally changed or informally agreed upon. 

Stakeholder Views 

As expected, there is a mixed set of views from external stakeholders engaging in the PPWR drafting process. Packaging and chemicals manufacturers especially have increasingly shared critical views of what they see as the development of a misaligned regulation, though for different reasons. 

The Permanent Material Alliance representing the steel, aluminum, and glass packaging industries expressed concerns that the proposed overall packaging waste reduction targets, which are based on weight, would unintentionally shift the market away from the heavier but inert and more recyclable materials like glass and metal towards lighter materials such as plastics and paper (a concept known as lightweighting). The proposal in the recent steering note to support placing specific targets on plastic packaging might begin to address this point. Though the idea is being met with criticism from plastics manufacturers represented by Plastics Europe who call for a more material-neutral approach within the regulation. 

The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) expressed concern about proposed requirements for closed-loop recycling of materials, which they argue is not sensible for paper and board given the various paper waste streams that exist across Europe. The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) is critical of recently reduced targets within the draft text for recycled content, of a lack of clarity surrounding bio-based feedstock, and of the proposal to address chemical safety directly within the PPWR.  

Opposingly, a group of over 40 environmental civil society organizations published a letter ahead of the first trilogue meeting calling on negotiators to strongly address the presence of hazardous chemical substances in all packaging materials within the PPWR including addressing the safety of recycling and recycled materials. 

First proposed in November 2022 (FPF reported), the new regulation is intended to replace the current Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste and include a wide range of new targets and requirements to reduce the impacts of packaging. Since that first draft, the Food Packaging Forum has reported in detail on various legislative steps to the development the regulation. This includes the public consultation on the initially proposed text with FPF’s submitted comments (FPF reported), initial negotiations within the European Parliament to revise the Commission’s proposal (FPF reported), and the Council of the European Union adopting its position (FPF reported). 

References 

European Commission (November 30, 2022). �?/span>Proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste.�?/span> 

Belgian Presidency of the EU (February 19, 2024). �?/span>Steering Note: Working Party on Environment �?16 and 20 February 2024 – Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.�?(pdf) 

Read More 

Eva Riebling (February 16, 2024). �?/span>Media reports: Deal to block PPWR agreed by Germany’s finance minister and Italy.�?EUWID 

Plastics Europe. �?/span>Plastics packaging value chain calls to keep PPWR a material-neutral framework that supports the EU industry sustainability transition.�?/span> 

CEPI (October 24, 2023). �?/span>Press release: Legislating on packaging and waste, the EU Parliament still needs to take into account what has already been achieved in the paper and board sector.�?/span> 

FEVE (December 19, 2023). �?/span>PPWR: Permanent Material Alliance disappointed by Member States lack of ambition on recyclability.�?/span> 

ECOS (February 1, 2024). �?/span>Joint letter �?Restrict hazardous substances in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.�?/span> 

The deletion of the list of unevaluated substances in packaging inks runs counter to movements elsewhere in Europe and the United States to increase transparency related to chemical use (FPF reported, also here). Removing sources of information on the chemicals used in food contact creates an added layer of difficulty to researchers investigating material safety. In the future, this may mean even basic inventories of intentionally used substances such as the Food Packaging Forum’s food contact chemicals database (FCCdb), are less reliable.  

According to FPF’s database on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals (FCCmigex), 499 substances with CAS registry numbers have been detected in food contact printing inks. Only 55% (277) were previously known to be in printing inks according to the FCCdb.

While the unevaluated chemicals list has been removed for inks, the remaining positive list for packaging inks (annex 10) as well as the positive lists for silicones (annex 9) and plastics (annex 2) were updated. Additionally, the rules for ceramics, glass, and enamel were brought into alignment with the EU’s Ceramic Articles Directive. 

References 

SGS (January 17, 2024). �?/span>Switzerland has amended the nation’s law on food contact materials and articles. These will become effective on February 1, 2024.�?/span> 

Swiss Federal Department of the Interior (December 2023). �?/span>Ordinance on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food.�?(in German, French, or Italian) 

Swiss Federal Department of the Interior (December 2023). �?/span>Ordinance on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food: additional texts.�?(in German, French, or Italian) 

Read more 

Keller and Heckman (January 19, 2024). �?/span>Swiss Printing Inks Ordinance Updated.�?Packaginglaw.com 

Compared to the first version of the model published in 2020, this second version incorporates chemical recycling and pre-consumer waste for a clearer picture of plastic waste generation and management. While no major new insights came from this effort, the model was designed from the beginning to be dynamic and updateable as more sources of information become available or get updated. Allowing for much less effort going forward. This clearer picture is meant to help Europe identify areas for improvement to meet the 10 million ton annual recycling target set by the EU in the 2018 European plastics strategy (FPF reported).  

Similarly, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) announced in January 2024 that it is considering “the creation of the Federal Plastics Registry, which will be used as a tool to monitor and track plastic from the time it is produced to its end of life.”�?/span> 

According to the press release, the new plastics registry would: 

• complement existing reporting requirements such as those under provincial and territorial extended producer responsibility programs, 
• harmonize plastics data across the country, and 
• make this information openly accessible to all Canadians and businesses through a new and modern reporting platform.
  

The registry was first proposed in a technical paper published in May 2023 (FPF reported) when ECCC was laying out a roadmap for the country’s goal of zero plastic waste by 2030 (FPF reported). The consultation period on the proposed registry is open until February 13, 2024.  

References 

JRC (January 23, 2024). �?/span>Modelling plastic product flows and recycling in the EU.�?European Commission  

ECCC (January 2, 2024). �?/span>The Government of Canada is seeking feedback on developing a federal plastics registry to help tackle plastic pollution.”�?/span> 

• the disodium salt of BPA specifically for the manufacture of polysulfone resins for plastic food contact membranes by way of amendment to Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic FCMs, provided that its migration into food is not detectable. 
• continued synthesis of the starting substance BADGE (CAS 1675-54-3) using BPA, only for the manufacture of BADGE-based heavy-duty varnishes and coatings to be applied to materials and articles with a capacity of more than 250 liters, provided that migration of any residual BPA into food is not detected 
• Up to 10 years for long-life products such as processing gaskets, etc.
  

Concerning BPA as a contaminate in FCMs made from recycled products, the proposal states, “it is neither practical nor proportionate to prohibit the unintentional presence of BPA in recycled materials”. It continues, “[m]onitoring by business operators and reporting to Member States for the unintentional presence of BPA in recycled paper and board food contact materials and articles should be established at Union level.” 

The draft regulation also restricts all other bisphenols for FCMs unless they are “first being risk assessed and authorised, to ensure that their use in the manufacture of food contact materials and articles does not endanger human health.” According to the Commission, this is already being done for all plastic FCMs under 10/2011.�?/span> 

Currently available information says the restriction will come into force in late 2025 or early 2026 (FPF reported).  This regulatory proposal comes after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued an updated scientific opinion finding that current dietary exposure to BPA is unsafe and lowered the tolerable daily intake (TDI) by a factor of 20,000 (FPF reported). The draft is open for public comment until March 8, 2024. 

Track this and other opportunities to contribute to regulation on food contact chemicals and materials on the Food Packaging Forum’s consultations page, and get an overview of what is expected in the 2024 policy outlook.  

Reference 

European Commission (February 9, 2024). �?/span>Food safety �?restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials.”�?/span> 

The PPWR has been the most lobbied political process in the EU’s history. Politico reported, “MEP Mohammed Chahim accused lobbyists of following his colleagues into the toilet or entering their offices without permission ahead of a crucial vote in the Parliament in November.�?Lobbyists have to follow a code of conduct which includes a register of those allowed, and depending on the results of the investigation, the individuals could be removed from the register.  

CEO reviewed more than 140 documents obtained from DG Environment and DG Grow concerning meetings and reports about the essential use concept with and from industry representatives dated October 2020 to March 2023. After reviewing the documents, the group outlined five arguments the industry organizations are making to politicians in public reports and behind closed doors about how to define essential use in the EU.  

Chief among these is the idea of “safe use�?�?allowing the continued use of a substance if it can be demonstrated safe. However, CEO writes, “‘safe use�?is pretty much the system we have today, which is clearly not sufficiently protective.�?This would avoid incorporating the precautionary principle into EU chemicals policy. 

CEO suggests that the EU government “introduce a lobby firewall which, while permitting industry to submit evidence via open consultations and hearings, then protects policy-makers from further corporate lobbying so that they can take decisions that are truly in the public interests of health and environment.”�?/span> 

References 

Leonie Cater (January 26, 2024). �?/span>Parliament probing lobbyists who fought sustainable packaging rules.�?Politico 

Corporate Europe Observatory (January 24, 2024). �?/span>How “essential�?are hazardous substances?: Industry is fighting to weaken new tool aimed at protecting health and ecosystems.”�?/span> 

Read more 

Clelia Oziel (January 24, 2024). �?/span>Major NGO report exposes industry lobbying to soften EU ‘essential use�?concept.�?Enhesa 

ChemSec (April 27, 2023). �?/span>8 key points for the essential use concept.”�?/span> 

Clelia Oziel (January 31, 2024). �?/span>EU citizens put safety at the heart of essential use debate.�?Enhesa 

The European Council still needs to give their official approval, at which point EU Member States have two years to incorporate the directive into national law.  

Confusion around terms such as “biodegradable�? “compostable�? and “plant-based�?causes considerable consumer confusion (FPF reported). They lead to increased costs and trouble for waste managers at both composting and recycling facilities (FPF reported). 

At a meeting held by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), a certification organization, in October 2023, compost company representatives from the US and Canada discussed the problems that come from contamination within the organic waste stream. Reporting on the event by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition quotes Erin Skelly of the SMSC Organics Recycling Facility explaining that, “oxodegradable, biodegradable, eco-friendly, and all-natural are not standards and can be very misleading for consumers�?(FPF reported). Workers at organic waste facilities have to spend time picking out plastic bags and other products that don’t have an official, understood degradability certification.  

A survey of US consumers published in July 2023 found that half of respondents do not dispose of packaging correctly and do not understand the difference between compostable and biodegradable (FPF reported). The Food Packaging Forum published a factsheet on bioplastics to help alleviate confusion on the subject, available in English, Spanish, and French.   

The European Parliament’s new directive comes in addition to the Green Claims Directive announced in March 2023 (FPF reported). They write, “the upcoming green claims directive will be more specific and elaborate the conditions for using environmental claims in greater detail.�?/span> 

References 

European Parliament (January 17, 2024). �?/span>MEPs adopt new law banning greenwashing and misleading product information.”�?/span> 

Savannah Guinyard (November 7, 2023). �?/span>In search of the cleanest compost: Highlights from BPI’s inaugural summit.�?Sustainable Packaging Coalition 

Read more 

Shanda Moorghen (January 18, 2024). �?/span>European Parliament adopts ban on misleading environmental claims.�?Enhesa  

European Parliament (September 19, 2023). �?/span>EU to ban greenwashing and improve consumer information on product durability.”�?/span> 

Adrian Zender (January 31, 2024). �?/span>Compostable coffee capsules: Rarely easily degradable.�?SRF (in German).  

For the known sources of microplastic exposure to humans, the authors gathered the size, shape, and polymer type of the measured particles from those sources as reported in published peer-reviewed studies. Known sources of exposure include packaged food (FPF reported), takeaway containers (FPF reported), bottled and tap water (FPF reported), tea bags (FPF reported), and cutting boards along with non-food contact sources including cosmetics, clothes, and environmental pollution. Additionally, the authors reviewed the literature for measurements of particle exposure via inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact (FPF reported). Finally, they documented locations in the human body where microplastic particles have been found (FPF reported).  

The article provides a concise overview of the field of research on human health effects from microplastics as it currently stands. De Boever and co-authors point out that technology currently limits the ability to detect nanoparticles but highlight that “the particle degradation dogma speculates that microplastic detection simultaneously signifies the presence of undetectable nanoplastics.�?They conclude by encouraging researchers “to shift their focus towards environmentally relevant particles in terms of plastic type, particle origin and surface charge.�? 

Reference

De Boever, S. et al. (2024). �?a href="//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724003978" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Unraveling the micro- and nanoplastic predicament: A human-centric insight.�?Science of the Total Environment. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170262 

The researchers reviewed information from “authoritative databases,�?including International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ToxCast to find which chemicals have been found to induce mammary tumors in rodents. Then they looked at multiple aspects of endocrine activity and genotoxicity of these chemicals to assess the key characteristics of rodent mammary carcinogens, and to identify other chemicals that exhibit these effects and may, therefore, increase breast cancer risk (FPF reported also here).  

In all, Kay and co-authors found 921 “breast cancer relevant exposures.�?These “exposures�?are substances that are known to either directly contribute to breast cancer development in rodents (in vivo evidence) or share key endocrine disrupting or genotoxic characteristics (mechanistic evidence) with those carcinogens. This is a significant expansion from when the list was first developed in 2007.  

Of the 921 breast cancer-relevant chemicals found by Kay and co-authors, 189 have been measured in food contact articles according to the Food Packaging Forum’s database on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals (FCCmigex). Migration experiments more closely resemble real-use situations but even when limiting FCCmigex results to migration, 121 breast cancer relevant chemicals have still been detected.  

Three-quarters of the breast cancer relevant food contact chemicals (FCCs) were detected in food contact articles made with plastic, but all material groups except glass* contained some of the chemicals (see Figure 1. *note: some of these chemicals may be in metal closures of glass containers).  

Figure 1. The number of breast cancer relevant substances from Kay et al.’s list that have been detected in migration or extraction studies of five food contact material groups.

In the study, the authors call for a significant improvement of hazard identification methodologies related to chemical use in everyday products. This includes enhanced assessments focusing on the effects of these compounds on the mammary gland, the development of assays for a broader range of chemicals, and a more comprehensive approach to chemical testing.  

FPF’s Chief Scientific Officer, Jane Muncke, together with 20 other scientists recently published a vision for safer food contact materials that discusses some of the same concerns (FPF reported). Muncke et al. developed the six clusters of disease concept, which highlights prevalent and increasingly concerning non-communicable diseases linked to chemical exposures: cancers, cardiovascular diseases, as well as reproductive, brain-related, immunological, and metabolic disorders. The vision proposes a novel approach for testing FCCs that includes assessing the health impacts of FCCs and real-life mixtures with respect to the most prevalent non-communicable diseases in the human population.  

The ten most-often-detected breast cancer relevant chemicals in food contact articles are (see also Figure 2): 

• Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (CAS 117-81-7) 
• Dibutyl phthalate (CAS 84-74-2) 
• Bisphenol A (CAS 80-05-7) 
• Diisobutyl phthalate (CAS 84-69-5) 
• Benzophenone (CAS 119-61-9) 
• Diethyl phthalate (CAS 84-66-2) 
• Benzyl butyl phthalate (CAS 85-68-7) 
• Styrene (CAS 100-42-5) 
• Dimethyl phthalate (CAS 131-11-3) 
• Irganox 1010 (CAS 6683-19-8)

Figure 2. The ten most studied food contact chemicals included in Kay et al.’s list of breast cancer relevant substances. Bars represent the number of times it has been detected in migration or extraction experiments from a food contact article, color represents the material of the article.

Many of these breast cancer-relevant FCCs have been under scrutiny at multiple regulatory jurisdictions in recent months and years. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2023 lowered the tolerable daily intake for bisphenol A (BPA) by a factor of 20,000 (FPF reported). The US Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on BPA this year (FPF reported) while Washington State banned bisphenol-based can liners entirely and has a plan to reduce citizen exposure to phthalates (FPF reported). The European Chemicals Agency recently expanded its substances of very high concern (SVHC) listing for dibutyl phthalate (FPF reported) and has suggested regulating phthalates as a group due to reprotoxic and endocrine disrupting properties (FPF reported). In Europe there is a specific migration limit for phthalates in platic FCMs, but EFSA is currently conducting preparatory work for the re-evaluation of phthalates, structurally similar substances, and replacement substances that are potentially used as plasticizers in food contact materials (FPF reported). 

This concern for chemical testing and regulation is reflected by Kay et al. who “argue that many of these [chemicals] should not be considered low hazard without investigating their ability to affect the breast, and chemicals with the strongest evidence can be targeted for exposure reduction.”�?/span> 

Reference 

Kay, Jennifer E., et al. (2024). �?/span>Application of the key characteristics framework to identify potential breast carcinogens using publicly available in vivo, in vitro, and in silico data.�?Environmental Health Perspectives. DOI 10.1289/EHP13233 

Read more 

Jones, R.R. and A.J. White. 2024. �?/span>New Motivations and Future Directions for Investigating Environmental Risk Factors for Breast Cancer.�?Environmental Health Perspectives. DOI: 10.1289/EHP13777 

Liza Gross (January 10, 2024). �?/span>More Than 900 Widely Used Chemicals May Increase Breast Cancer Risk.�?Inside Climate News. 

Silent Spring Institute (January 10, 2024). �?/span>More than 900 chemicals, many found in consumer products and the environment, display breast-cancer causing traits.”�?/span> 

The researchers purchased a total of nine paper straws – printed and not printed – made in China by three different manufacturers, and performed migration experiments with a carbonated drink for 30 min at 70 °C. To analyze non-volatile migrants, they used ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography with ion mobility quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-IM-Q/TOF) which allows the identification of unknown compounds in complex samples in combination with advanced statistical analysis (principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal projection to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA)). 

Canellas and co-authors detected that 19 chemicals had migrated from straws into soda samples in individual concentrations, between 0.015 and 3.6 mg chemical per kg soda. PCA demonstrated differences in migrating chemicals between the straws of the three manufacturers suggesting that they use different additives in their production. For instance, the photoinitiators 2,2-dimethoxy-2-phenylacetophenone (CAS 24650-42-8) and diphenyl (2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (CAS 75980-60-8), and the dye, rhodamine B (CAS 81-88-9), were three compounds found to migrate from some of the printed straws. Many of the migrating compounds “were additives typically found in plastic products.�? 

The scientists were further interested in whether the migrating levels could be considered safe. Currently, Europe has no harmonized regulation specific to paper, board, inks, and coatings as food contact materials, but some national regulations exist in France, the Netherlands, Germany, and elsewhere. Due to the absence of a harmonized European regulation, Canellas et al. compared their findings to the specific migration limits (SMLs) established for plastic food contact materials (Regulation (EU) No 10/2011), finding that migration of the primary aromatic amine and suspected carcinogen 4,4�?methylenedianiline (CAS 101-77-9) exceeded its regulatory SML. In addition, two recognized endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), bis(2-ethylbutyl)phthalate (CAS 7299-89-0) and dioctyl phthalate (CAS 117-84-0), were among the migrating compounds.   

The authors concluded this “suggest[s] that paper straws may not be the safest alternative to plastic straws in terms of food safety.�?/span> 

EU Directive 2019/904 banned many single-use plastic products in the EU from 2021, including plastic drinking straws (FPF reported), leading many manufacturers to produce paper drinking straws as an alternative. In 2019, the Swiss government laboratory tested 12 paper straws and found them to contain chloropropanols, mineral oils, and photoinitiators (FPF reported). Besides a safety challenge, paper straws are also considered a recycling challenge, according to McDonald’s (FPF reported). Straws labeled as “plant-based�? and “biodegradable�?do not seem better according to a study that detected per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in 36 out of the 38 tested products (FPF reported). 

Reference 

Baker, B. H. et al. (2024). �?/span>Exploring soda contamination coming from paper straws through ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography coupled with an ion mobility-quadrupole time-of-flight analyzer and advanced statistical analysis.�?Food Packaging and Shelf Life. DOI: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2024.101237 

According to the Food Packaging Forum’s Database on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals (FCCmigex), four of the five new substances, as well as dibutyl phthalate, have been detected in migration or extraction experiments of food contact articles. Two have been listed for intentional use in food contact applications according to FPF’s Food Contact Chemicals Database (FCCdb). The five FCCs along with the FPF database they are found in are:�?/span> 

• 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol (CAS 732-26-3); FCCmigex�? FCCdb 
• 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol (UV-329, CAS 3147-75-9); FCCmigex�? FCCdb 
• 2-(dimethylamino)-2-[(4-methylphenyl)methyl]-1-[4-(morpholin-4-yl)phenyl]butan-1-one�?CAS 119344-86-4); FCCmigex�? FCCdb 
• Bumetrizole (CAS 3896-11-5); FCCmigex�?/span> 
• Dibutyl phthalate, (updated entry, CAS 84-74-2); FCCmigex�? FCCdb 

FPF submitted comments to ECHA after the announcement that the chemicals were being considered for the Candidate List (FPF reported). In the comments, FPF highlighted that two of the new Candidates are included in Annex 1 of the EU Regulation on food contact materials ((EU) No 10/2011) �?the positive list for authorized chemicals in plastic food contact materials (FCMs). REACH ((EU) 2020/2096) demands the substitution of SVHCs by safer alternatives in industrial products, processes, and in consumer articles solely based on their intrinsic hazard properties, not based on their risk (where both hazard properties and exposure levels are considered). However, the human health effects of FCMs are excluded from the REACH authorization process. This means that if a substance becomes an SVHC under REACH this substance’s authorization under Annex 1 is not immediately affected and consequently, known SVHCs can still be used legally in FCMs. 

All EU producers of these chemicals or suppliers of products containing chemicals on the SVHC candidate list above a concentration of 0.1% by weight must provide safety information to consumers for safe use of the chemicals and/or products. Companies are also required to notify ECHA under REACH and under the Waste Framework Directive for inclusion in the SCIP database (FPF reported). There are currently 240 chemicals on�?/span>ECHA’s Candidate List.�?/span> 

Reference 

ECHA (January 23, 2024). �?/span>ECHA adds five hazardous chemicals to the Candidate List.�?/span> 

The draft regulation slightly reorganizes the categories of FCMs in Indonesian regulation. In the current regulation, which came into force in 2020, printing inks and coatings are an FCM category the same level as, for example, plastics or glass (FPF reported). In the proposed update, printing inks and coatings are no longer a separate FCM category. Even without these two categories, BPOM has expanded the covered material types, and components like ink, coating, adhesive, and other functions are now highlighted chemical-by-chemical in lists in the annex.

The material groups are:

1. Plastics
2. Rubber and elastomers
3. Paper and board 
4. Ceramics 
5. Glass 
6. Metal and metal alloys 
7. Multilayer materials  

Each material type has general migration requirements with special requirements by sub-type. For example, all plastic materials have a general migration limit of 60 mg/kg while specific polymers have special migration limits for starting substances or applicable chemicals of concern. Some examples:  

• Melamine-formaldehyde resin (melamine) has maximum migration limits for both starting substances, 2.5 and 3 mg/kg, respectively. Plus, the added limitation that it is not to be used in microwaveable containers.  
• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) has migration limits for ethylene glycol (CAS 107-21-1), diethylene glycol (CAS 111-46-6), acetaldehyde (CAS 75-07-0), terephthalic acid (CAS 100-21-0), isophthalic acid (121-91-5, and antimony trioxide (CAS 1309-64-4) 
• While polylactic acid (PLA) and polypropylene (PP) have no special requirements and substances are subject to the general 60mg/kg for plastics 

The FCM migration testing guidelines included in the draft consider the type of packaged or processed food (e.g., dairy, baked goods) and the “worst case�?contact time and temperature between the material and food item.  

The draft regulation includes a set of annexes with lists of chemicals, the materials they are known to be used in, their function, and migration limit. These annexes include: (i) 115 permitted substances with migration limits; (ii) 1372 permitted substances without a specific migration limit; and (iii) 142 substances prohibited for use. The prohibited substances list also applies to components of a food contact article including inks, dyes, adhesives, etc.  

For other policy updates expected in the coming year, review FPF’s 2024 policy outlook as well as the consultations page.  

Reference 

BPOM (October 31, 2023). �?/span>Provisional regulation of the Food and Drug Authority concerning food packaging.�?(in Indonesian) 

Read more 

Jerry Wang (January 5, 2024). �?Indonesia consults on the food packaging regulation.�?ChemLinked 

SGS (January 10, 2024). �?/span>Indonesia issues draft law on food contact materials.”�?/span> 

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) highlighted in a report published in November 2023 that key regulatory challenges for ECHA and the EU are to (i) provide protection against most harmful chemicals, (ii) address chemical pollution in the environment, as well as to (iii) improve the availability of chemical data. Multiple EU policies expected to be up for comment or finalized in 2024 address one or more of these challenges.

Q1 2024

Packaging and packaging waste regulation. After considerable public debate and private lobbying throughout 2023 (FPF reported), the European Commission, Parliament, and Council have adopted positions on the proposal (FPF reported here and here) and should decide the final shape of the PPWR regulation in early 2024.

Restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials. The draft restriction is late but there are rumors that a draft act will be available soon. The BPA restriction was originally scheduled for adoption in Q1 2024 but draft publication, at least one round of public consultation, and the final policy debate remains. Currently available information says the restriction will come into force in late 2025 or early 2026 (FPF reported).

Microplastics pollution �?measures to reduce its impact on the environment. The final public feedback period for this initiative ended on January 17, 2024. The feedback will be summarized by the European Commission and given to the European Parliament and Council to create the final version.

Following a cargo spill of plastic nurdles off the coast of Spain on January 10, 2024, discussion has increased around controls of shipping nurdles and other plastic production components within the EU. Originally, this aspect of microplastic pollution control was going to be left to the International Maritime Organization. Sri Lanka asked the IMO to increase shipment controls of all plastic pellets, flakes, and powders following a disaster there in May 2021 (FPF reported).

Q3 2024

Chemicals legislation �?revision of REACH Regulation to help achieve a toxic-free environment. The revision is running late but the Commission confirmed in December 2023 that it will continue to move forward. However, publication of the draft will not be available until after the next parliamentary term begins in June 2024. Originally, the REACH revision was planned for early 2023. The delay has been a source of consternation for civil society organizations and Member States (FPF reported also here).

Q4 2024

PVC mandate. ECHA supports restricting some additives used in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic products and tightening controls of PVC microplastics (FPF reported) but the final decision is up to the Commission.

2025

Revision of EU rules on food contact materials. Originally scheduled for 2023, the FCM revision has had many delays (FPF reported). A report on IT infrastructure requirements for the revision is expected in “spring 2024�?and another report on “sustainable packaging�?should come out later in 2024 but the policy impact assessment and public consultation may not come until 2025.

Food safety �?plastic food contact materials (FCMs) (update to quality control rules). Meant to align rules between Regulation (EU) 10/2011 on plastic FCMs with the regulation on recycled plastics and the regulation on biocidal products. It would also affect migration testing procedures. Originally scheduled for adoption in Q2 2023.

Food safety �?heavy metals in ceramic, glass and enameled table and kitchenware. There has been no movement on this initiative since the roadmap feedback period closed in June 2019. Public consultation was originally scheduled for Q4 2022.

United States

Q1/Q2 2024

Follow-up is expected from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about both the finalized National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution (FPF reported) and the potential expansion of the Safer Choice Program to new product categories (FPF reported). The public comment periods for the plastics strategy and the Safer Choice expansion closed in July and September 2023, respectively. When the conclusions from these comment periods will be published is unknown but early 2024 seems feasible.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to act on multiple pending petitions early this year, including one related to defining key terms related to considering cumulative effects of food contact, GRAS, or other substances in the food system, and another on whether BPA should be allowed as a food contact substance. Responses to both petitions are well overdue.

2024

FDA announced in August 2023 that it is revamping its process to reassess food contact substances after release on the market (FPF reported). The agency is currently undergoing work to restructure its food program following public outcry from investigative reporting (FPF reported) and subsequent analysis by both a congressional watchdog (FPF reported) and an independent panel (FPF reported). As such, potentially a lot of change may come this year though, again, dates remain unknown.

United Nations Environment Program (Plastics Treaty)

Several people at FPF are members of the Scientists�?Coalition and plan to continue participating in the final two meetings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment this year (FPF reported). The Scientists�?Coalition has multiple policy briefs already published and additional ones in development to assist in policy discussions before and during the upcoming negotiations.

April 19-30

Meeting 4 of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution in Ottawa, Canada.

November 25 �?December 1

Meeting 5 of the INC on Plastic Pollution in Busan, South Korea

United Nations Environment Program (SPP)

The Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution Prevention is continuing to be developed in 2024 (FPF reported). FPF is not participating directly but keeping an eye on progress.

June 17 �?21, 2024

Open Ended Working Group -3

Other Regions

Indonesia’s new national policy on food contact materials should be published in 2024 (FPF reported).

While discussions around food contact materials and chemicals are very active and get significant public attention in Europe and North America, many other regions around the world are engaged in FCM-related policy initiatives. The Food Packaging Forum strives to share policy initiatives through our news and track opportunities to provide input during planned consultations. If you know of other initiatives, please share them with us. Initiatives being made by private industry through food brands and retailers are tracked within FPF’s BRID platform.

References

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12497-Revision-of-EU-rules-on-food-contact-materials_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Revision of EU rules on food contact materials.�?/p>

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13501-Food-safety-plastic-food-contact-materials-FCMs-update-to-quality-control-rules-_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Food safety �?plastic food contact materials (FCMs) (update to quality control rules).�?/p>

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2074-Food-safety-heavy-metals-in-ceramic-glass-and-enameled-table-and-kitchenware_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Food safety �?heavy metals in ceramic, glass and enameled table and kitchenware.�?/p>

Revision of EU Rules on FCMs

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12823-Microplastics-pollution-measures-to-reduce-its-impact-on-the-environment_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Microplastics pollution �?measures to reduce its impact on the environment.�?/p>

Marta Pacheco (January 12, 2024). �?a href="//www.euronews.com/green/2024/01/12/spanish-plastic-pellet-spill-galvanises-eu-efforts-to-limit-microplastic-pollution" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Spanish plastic pellet spill galvanises EU efforts to limit microplastic pollution.�?EuroNews

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13832-Food-safety-restrictions-on-bisphenol-A-BPA-and-other-bisphenols-in-food-contact-materials_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Food safety �?restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials.�?/p>

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12959-Chemicals-legislation-revision-of-REACH-Regulation-to-help-achieve-a-toxic-free-environment_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Chemicals legislation �?revision of REACH Regulation to help achieve a toxic-free environment.�?/p>

US EPA. �?a href="//www.epa.gov/saferchoice" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Safer Choice.�?/p>

US EPA. �?a href="//www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/draft-national-strategy-prevent-plastic-pollution" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution.�?/p>

US FDA (2022). �?a href="//www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2022-F-1108" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Environmental Defense Fund, Maricel Maffini, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Endocrine Society, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University; Filing of Food Additive Petition.�?Regulations.gov

US FDA (2020). �?a href="//www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2020-P-2003" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Requests that the FDA define key terms essential to consider the cumulative effect of a food additive, food contact substance, generally recognized as safe substance, or color additive, taking into account any chemically- or pharmacologically-related substances in the diet, when assessing safety as required by law.�?Regulations.gov

UNEP. �?a href="//www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution/session-4" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Fourth Session (INC-4).�?/p>

UNEP. �?a href="//www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution/session-5" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Fifth Session (INC-5).�?/p>

UNEP. �?a href="//www.unep.org/oewg-spp-chemicals-waste-pollution" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Ad hoc open-ended working group on a science-policy panel on chemicals, waste and pollution prevention.�?/p>  

Read more

European Council (December 18, 2023). “Packaging and packaging waste: Council adopts its negotiating position on new rules for more sustainable packaging in the EU.”

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13161-Chemicals-making-best-use-of-EU-agencies-to-streamline-scientific-assessments_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Streamlining EU-level scientific and technical work on chemicals.�?/p>

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13459-Chemical-safety-better-access-to-chemicals-data-for-safety-assessments_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Chemical safety �?better access to chemicals data for safety assessments.�?/p>

European Commission. �?a href="//ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13750-Hazardous-chemicals-prohibiting-production-for-export-of-chemicals-banned-in-the-European-Union_en" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Hazardous chemicals �?prohibiting production for export of chemicals banned in the European Union.�?/p>

Vanessa Zainziger (April 18, 2023). �?a href="//product.enhesa.com/729266/commission-inches-towards-eu-fcm-revision-impact-assessment-by-2025" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Commission inches towards EU FCM revision impact assessment by 2025.�?Enhesa

Cailey Gleeson (December 21, 2023). �?a href="//product.enhesa.com/932056/us-health-department-starts-formal-review-of-proposed-fda-foods-programme-redesign" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">US health department starts formal review of proposed FDA foods programme redesign.�?Enhesa

Clelia Oziel (December 8, 2023). �?a href="//product.enhesa.com/916334/eu-commission-reaffirms-commitment-to-reach-revision" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">EU Commission reaffirms commitment to REACH revision.�?/a> Enhesa

The study cohort consisted of 1031 pregnant women from the Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) Study. The women filled out a questionnaire (Block Food Frequency Questionnaire), noting their consumption of 114 food and beverage items during their second trimester and also provided urine samples. Frequencies of participant’s intake of all foods, both ultra-, and minimally- processed, were summed up. Using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, 16 phthalate metabolites and phthalic acid (CAS 88-99-3), were measured in second trimester urine.

The study showed that the women’s�?diets were composed of 9.8 – 59% of ultra-processed foods, defined as industrial formulations typically with 5 or more (often many more) ingredients according to the NOVA food processing classification system (used by Baker et al.). The scientists reported that “each 10 % higher dietary proportion of ultra-processed foods was associated with 13.1 %�?higher urinary levels of the molar sum of five di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate metabolites (ΣDEHP). Conversely, a higher intake of minimally processed food related to lower urinary ΣDEHP. Further, ΣDEHP urinary concentration increased especially with increased intake of (ultra-processed) hamburgers/cheeseburgers, followed by French fries, sodas, and cakes.

It is well-established that phthalates are present in several types of foods and beverages (FPF reported), especially fast foods (FPF reported and here). They have been linked to several human health outcomes including endocrine-disrupting effects (FPF reported and here), cardiovascular disease (FPF reported), and behavioral disorders (FPF reported). Current regulatory ‘safe�?limits were shown to be insufficiently protective of human health (FPF reported). Besides the packaging, phthalates can also stem from food processing (FPF reported) and dairy farming equipment (FPF reported).

Another study shows that ultra-processed food is not only an exposure source for chemicals but also microplastics. Madeleine H. Milne from the University of Toronto, Canada, and co-authors investigated the plastic particle levels in various US protein-rich food products, including seafood, terrestrial meats, and plant-based foods. In their article, published on December 28, 2023, in the journal Environmental Pollution, the authors describe that they aimed to assess how processing levels, as well as the packaging material and food brand, influence microplastic contamination of foodstuffs.

References

Baker, B. H. et al. (2024). �?a href="//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024000138?via%3Dihub" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Ultra-processed and fast food consumption, exposure to phthalates during pregnancy, and socioeconomic disparities in phthalate exposures.�?Environment International. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108427

Milne, H. M. et al. (2023). �?a href="//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123022352?via%3Dihub" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Exposure of U.S. adults to microplastics from commonly-consumed proteins.�?Environmental Pollution. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.123233

The study tested 85 foods, including fruits, vegetables, canned goods, and dairy products, packaged in cans, pouches, foil, or other materials. Bisphenols were detected in 79% of the tested samples, albeit with significantly lower levels than in a previous study in 2009, CR says. Phthalates were found in all but one food with much higher levels than for the bisphenols, ranging from less than 1,000 ng per serving to more than 50,000 in one sample. The amounts detected in the foods were below regulatory limits, however, the authors emphasize that “it’s difficult to quantify what a safe limit would be for a single food�? and “[…] there is no level that scientists have confirmed as safe […]�?(FPF reported). 

In April 2023, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published an updated Scientific Opinion on BPA where the tolerable daily intake (TDI) was reduced by a factor of 20,000 compared to the previous level determined in 2015 to a TDI of 0.2 ng/kg bodyweight per day (FPF reported).  

According to CR, these findings are concerning, especially with growing research showing that some of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors (FPF reported and here). They urge chemical companies “to step up, by creating safer, more sustainable materials.�?/span> 

Reference 

Lauren F. Friedman (January 4, 2024). �?/span>The plastic chemicals hiding in your food.�?Consumer Reports 

Read more 

Bailee Henderson (January 5, 2024). �?/span>High levels of toxic plasticizers phthalates, bisphenols found in nearly all foods in U.S.�?Food Safety Magazine 

European Food Safety Authority (April 19, 2023). �?/span>Bisphenol A in food is a health risk.�?/span> 

The Georgian regulation brings the country in line with the specific migration limits (SMLs) of lead and cadmium as regulated in the EU’s Ceramic Articles Directive.

The new limits will go into force on January 1, 2026. Anything already on the market by that date can remain unchanged until the end of 2026.  

The European Commission officially recommended Georgia as an EU candidate in November 2023, which was confirmed by the European Council on December 14, 2023. Aligning national policies with those of the EU is part of the EU accession process.  

References 

Government of Georgia (November 14, 2023). �?/span>Regarding the approval of the ‘Technical Regulation – on ceramic products intended for contact with food�?/span>.�?(in Georgian). 

ECHA. �?/span>Ceramic Articles Directive – Lead and Cadmium Migration Limits.”�?/span> 

Daniel Bellamy (December 16, 2023). �?/span>Georgia celebrates gaining EU candidate status.�?EuroNews 

Read more 

Luke Buxton (December 6, 2023). �?/span>Georgia restricts lead and cadmium in food contact ceramics.�?Enhesa 

ECHA 

On November 28, 2023, ECHA published an initial report on potential human health risks from PVC resin, additives, and microparticles.  

For the occupational safety of workers with the resin, ECHA’s investigators found that “operational conditions and risk management measures implemented in the VCM [vinyl chloride monomer] /PVC industry are adequate and effective to control the risk for workers.”�?/span> 

However, the agency had concerns about the additives and microparticles. Of the 470 PVC additives ECHA identified, the investigation focused on 63 that function as heat stabilizers, plasticizers, and flame retardants. The investigation identified human health risks from some, and environmental risk from all of the 63 prioritized additives. 

To address the risks from PVC additives and particles, ECHA recommended regulatory action to: 

• Minimize risks from plasticizers, in particular ortho-phthalates, likely through a REACH restriction 
• Reduce risks from organotin substances, likely through a REACH restriction. (ECHA notes that organotin substances are used more often in North America than in Europe with exposure facilitated by imports.) 
• “Follow-up�?on ECHA’s proposed EU-wide strategy on flame retardants 
• Minimize the release of PVC particles (and additives) to the environment. Likely through improved technology at recycling facilities and landfills.  

It is now up to the European Commission to decide whether ECHA should prepare a REACH restriction proposal.  

EPA 

On December 14, 2023, the EPA announced it was beginning the process of evaluating five chemicals for potential designation as High Priority Substances, including the monomer to produce PVC, vinyl chloride (CAS 75-01-4).  

The other four substances under consideration are acetaldehyde (CAS 75-07-0), acrylonitrile (CAS 107-13-1), benzenamine (CAS 62-53-3), and 4,4�?methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA, CAS 101-14-4). All have been measured in food contact materials according to the Food Packaging Forum’s database on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals (FCCmigex).  

EPA officially has the next twelve months to decide, but “expects these chemicals to be designated as high-priority for risk evaluation during the prioritization process.�?When that happens, the agency will conduct a comprehensive risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act which could lead to management steps including regulating or restricting the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of the respective chemical. 

Stakeholders, including the public, can comment on EPA’s prioritization of these five chemicals until March 18, 2024.  

Track this and other public consultation opportunities related to food contact materials and chemicals on FPF’s consultations page.  

References 

ECHA (November 28, 2023). �?/span>ECHA identifies risks from PVC additives and microparticle releases.�?/span> 

US EPA (December 14, 2023). �?/span>EPA begins process to prioritize five chemicals for risk Evaluation under Toxic Substances Control Act.”�?/span> 

ECHA (March 15, 2023). �?/span>ECHA identifies certain brominated flame retardants as candidates for restriction.�?/span> 

Read more 

Kelly Franklin (December 10, 2023). �?/span>Vinyl chloride, other plastic building blocks next up for TSCA prioritization.�?Enhesa 

Brian Bienkowski (December 15, 2023). �?/span>EPA begins review of PVC ingredient vinyl chloride, which could lead to restrictions or ban.�?Environmental Health News 

Alden Wicker (January 2, 2024). �?/span>As the world swims in plastic, some offer an answer: Ban the toxic two.�?Mongabay 

Specifically, the authors considered a certain set of plastic chemicals, namely polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs), phthalates, bisphenols, and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and researched the fraction of these chemicals used in the production of plastics. In previous studies, the authors estimated the cost of exposure from all uses of these chemicals such as bisphenol A (FPF reported), phthalates (FPF reported), and PFAS (FPF reported). Therefore, they could use a subset of these data to determine the fraction of plastics-related costs. They focused on the disease burden from endocrine-disrupting effects such as premature birth, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

The outcome of the calculation indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) cost the US an estimated $250 billion in increased healthcare costs in 2018. These costs correspond to 1.22% of the Gross Domestic Product. The largest drivers of social costs were PBDEs at $159 billion, followed by phthalates at $66.7 billion and PFAS at $22.4 billion.

A report published by the Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health in 2023 estimated an even higher cost of $920 billion from the US population’s exposure to EDCs and neurotoxic plastic additives in 2015 (FPF reported). Transande and co-authors highlight the discrepancy in both assessments and point to a likely difference in applied methods or estimates used.

The scientists emphasize that policy initiatives address chemicals in plastics, and highlight the global plastics treaty, which is currently being negotiated (FPF reported), as important for supporting such policy initiatives. If the plastic treaty addresses the full plastic life cycle and targets chemicals of concern used in plastics�?manufacture, societal benefits “are substantial, as reduced exposures will lead to saving in health-care costs due to lower disease burdens.�?/p>

Since March 2022 when UN member states began negotiations on an international plastics treaty to end plastic pollution (FPF reported), several publications have highlighted the diverse effects that the plastics supply chain has on human health and the environment (FPF reported) and have provided recommendations on how to integrate concerns about chemicals contained in plastics within the treaty (FPF reported).

Importantly, and transparently communicated in the article by Trasande et al., the study only considered a small subset (i.e., EDCs) of the over 3,000 chemicals of concern present in plastics (FPF reported). For instance, a high percentage of plastic chemicals are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMRs), with cancers and related endpoints not accounted for in the present study. Indeed only few diseases associated with EDCs are taken into account, which is why the actual disease burden and health costs associated with plastic chemicals are likely much higher.

Health costs have also been calculated for areas outside the US, such as for female reproductive health in the EU due to EDCs (FPF reported), for European Economic Area member countries due to PFAS exposure (FPF reported), and globally due to exposure to environmental chemicals in general (FPF reported).

Reference

Trasande, L. et al. (2023). �?a href="//academic.oup.com/jes/article/8/2/bvad163/7513992" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Chemicals used in plastic materials: An estimate of the attributable disease burden and costs in the United States.�?Journal of the Endocrine Society. DOI: 10.1210/jendso/bvad163

Read more

CNN Health (January 11, 2023). �?a href="//edition.cnn.com/2024/01/11/health/health-care-costs-plastic-study-wellness/index.html" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Plastic chemicals linked to $249 billion in US health care costs in just one year, study finds.�?Sandee LaMotte

In an article published on November 24, 2023, in the Journal of Chromatography Open, Paulo Henrique Massaharu Kiyataka from Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and co-authors analyzed 19 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles for the presence and migration of antimony. The scientists purchased the water bottles in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and quantified Sb levels in the bottles by heating them to over 300 °C under high pressure. Furthermore, they performed migration experiments at 40 °C for 10 days and 60°C for 10 days, according to Brazil’s food contact regulation (Resolution RDC No. 51/2010) and the European regulation for plastic food contact materials (EC 10/2011), respectively. Sb levels were assessed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). 

The Sb content in the PET bottles was between 173 and 253 mg/kg packaging. This meets “the limit of total Sb in PET of 350 mg/kg established by Germany,�?the only country that has established limits for Sb content in PET packaging. Concerning migration, the scientists reported that Sb concentrations were below the limit of detection at 40 °C (0.52 µg/L) but between 1.59 and 4.42 µg/L at 60 °C. This is below the specific migration limits of 40 µg/L and 40 µg/kg established by Brazilian and European legislation, respectively. 

Another article published on December 16, 2023, in the Journal of Chromatography Open, also investigated Sb migration from PET bottles. Gursel Isci and Elif Dagdemir from Agri Ibrahim Cecen University, Agri and Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey, respectively, focused on how storage conditions influence Sb migration.  

The scientists acquired 25 PET bottles of different types of beverages from local supermarkets in Turkey and subjected them to storage conditions of 4, 25, and 40°C for 90, 180, and 365 days before Sb analysis by ICP-mass spectrometry. Before storage, all but one sample contained Sb, but over time, the concentrations increased. Sb levels also increased with temperature. Comparing the levels in the different types of beverages, the authors reported that migration was higher in drinks with low pH and high gas pressure, but always stayed below 7.5 ng/mL. This confirms findings of previous scientific studies that have shown that antimony is present in plastics and can migrate into foods (FPF reported), with migration increasing with temperature (FPF reported) and drink acidity (FPF reported). 

Isci and Dagdemir further performed a survey with 580 individuals to assess daily beverage consumption and compare the intake of Sb with the tolerable daily intake (TDI) value of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) drinking water guideline. They reported that estimated daily intakes, no matter the storage time and temperature, were below the WHO’s TDI of 6 µg/kg bw/day. The authors also calculated hazard quotients to be below one, and concluded: “that the studied compounds in PET-bottled beverages were safe,.., suggesting minimal non-carcinogenic health risks.�?Besides Sb, the researchers also tested for migration of phthalate esters.  

Opposed to these two recent studies, a report published in 2022 detected antimony in unsafe levels in 40 % of the tested beverages from major brands bottled in PET (FPF reported).  

References 

Massaharu Kiyataka, P. H. et al. (2023). �?/span>Migration of antimony from polyethylene terephthalate bottles to mineral water: Comparison between test conditions proposed by Brazil and the European Union.�?Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. DOI: 0.1016/j.jfca.2023.105859 

Isci G. and Dagdemir E. (2023). �?/span>Human Health Risk Assessment of Phthalate Esters and Antimony Levels in Beverages Packaged in Polyethylene Terephthalate under Different Storage Conditions.�?Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. DOI: 0.1016/j.jfca.2023.105922 

The Council has maintained the Commission’s proposal that all packaging placed on the EU market must be recyclable. Additionally, the Council introduced a requirement for packaging to be separately collected, sorted, and recycled at scale to ensure effective recycling capabilities. To enhance the collection and recycling of single-use plastic bottles and metal beverage containers, the Council has mandated member states to establish deposit return systems by 2029.

To address the potential impact of substances in packaging on recycling and environmental health, the Council has strengthened the requirements for substances in packaging. The Commission will be tasked with preparing a report on substances of concern and their impact on recycling and chemical safety, assisted by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

Furthermore, the Council has extended the date of application of the regulation to 18 months after it entered into force, providing additional time for member states and industry to prepare for the implementation of the new rules.

The Council’s general approach aims to serve as a negotiating mandate for discussions with the European Parliament on the final shape of the regulation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine the specific details and timeline for the implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.

References

European Council (December 18, 2023). �?a href="//www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/12/18/packaging-and-packaging-waste-council-adopts-its-negotiating-position-on-new-rules-for-more-sustainable-packaging-in-the-eu/" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Packaging and packaging waste: Council adopts its negotiating position on new rules for more sustainable packaging in the EU.�?/p>

Vanessa Zainzinger (December 19, 2023). �?a href="//chemicalwatch.com/928298/council-of-ministers-pushes-eu-commission-for-chemicals-in-packaging-review" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Council of Ministers pushes EU commission for chemicals in packaging review.�?Chemical Watch.

Read more

Zero Waste Europe (December 18, 2023). �?a href="//zerowasteeurope.eu/press-release/councils-position-on-packaging-rules-an-improvement-over-parliaments-stance-says-zero-waste-europe/" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Council’s position on packaging rules an ‘improvement�?over Parliament’s stance, says Zero Waste Europe.�?/p>The post European Council adopts position on Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation first appeared on Food Packaging Forum.]]> //topcookbox.com/news/cyclic-oligomer-migration-is-higher-from-recycled-than-virgin-pet-study-finds Thu, 04 Jan 2024 05:56:00 +0000 //topcookbox.com/?post_type=fpf-news&p=339808 Cyclic oligomer migration is higher from recycled than virgin PET, study finds first appeared on Food Packaging Forum.]]> In an article published on December 21, 2023, in the journal Food Packaging and Shelf Life, Gianluca Colombo and co-authors from Aarhus University, Denmark, compared the migration of cyclic oligomers and NIAS from industrially recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) trays with different ratios of virgin and recycled PET, and produced by two different extrusion processes.

MALDI-TOF-MS showed a decrease in the molecular weight distribution of polymers in recycled compared to virgin PET trays, which indicates depolymerization due to mechanical recycling, according to the authors. From all seven trays, some of the 12 targeted cyclic PET oligomers were found to migrate into food simulant, but levels varied between the different trays. With increasing content of recycled PET, oligomers migrated in higher levels (especially 2^nd and 3^rd series dimers) which confirms previous findings (FPF reported). Moreover, “trays obtained with single-screw extrusion showed a significantly higher increase of the PET oligomers concentration.�?The authors explained this phenomenon with the shear rate during the extrusion process, creating higher temperatures and friction within the polymer, which could have an impact on material degradation and subsequent oligomer release.

In the untargeted screening, Colombo and co-authors identified a total of 30 compounds, including antioxidants, photoinitiators, phthalates, and different amides. Based on multivariate analysis, they further identified marker compounds to discriminate recycled from virgin PET which were benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), butyl lactate, dodecenamide, 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane, PET 2^nd series cyclic dimer as well as PET 1^st series cyclic dimer.

The health risk of oligomers migrating from PET is essentially unknown. A systematic evidence map published earlier in 2023 summarized the presence of 34 types of oligomers in food contact materials and their migration into food or food simulant, while also looking into their toxicity. The study found 74% of the 34 oligomers migrated, with the majority not yet assessed for their safety (FPF reported). Further, the report found that several basic assumptions made in the risk assessment of PET oligomers are not based on scientific evidence, highlighting the need for more robust risk assessment of PET oligomers.

Oligomers are relevant for all types of plastics. Another review summarized the presence of oligomers in products made of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), and polystyrene (PS) in addition to PET (FPF reported). Large knowledge gaps exist for health risks related to oligomer migration.

Reference

Colombo, G. et al. (2023). �?a href="//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214289423002041" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Untargeted screening of NIAS and cyclic oligomers migrating from virgin and recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) food trays.�?Food Packaging and Shelf Life. DOI: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101227

Presence and migration from plastic bags

In an article published on November 22, 2023, in the Journal of Chromatography Open, Kevin M. Stroski from USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Wyndmoor, USA, and Yelena Sapozhnikova from Baylor University, Waco, USA, analyzed 18 plastic food storage bags acquired in Philadelphia, USA for PFAS presence and levels. Upon performing extraction and migration experiments, the scientists did a targeted analysis for 35 PFAS as well as a non-targeted analysis using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometry.

Performing migration experiments on eight bags, only PFBS was present in the samples and levels were between 5.9 and 20 ng/g packaging. The steady-state concentration was already reached after 2 hours of migration, meaning concentrations in the samples stayed the same as the experiment continued indicating “that even brief contact with the tested plastic storage bag can result in rapid migration of PFBS.�?Based on the migration data, the scientists further calculated the potential weekly intake of PFBS to be 2.12 ng/kg body weight. Since no regulatory threshold value existed for PFBS, they compared it to the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) tolerable weekly intake value for the sum of four specific PFAS which is 4.4 ng/kg. The detected PFBS values were well below it.

PFAS in single-use food packaging

On December 13, 2023, IPEN, a non-profit umbrella organization comprising 600 public interest NGOs, published a report on PFAS use and contamination in single-use paper, cardboard, and plant-based food packaging and tableware. Jitka Straková and co-authors assessed samples from 17 countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean including fast-food wrappers, takeaway cardboard boxes, coffee cups, microwave popcorn bags, and many more.

PFAS exposure and liver disease

In an article published on October 21, 2023, in the journal Science of the Total Environment, Jinfeng Zhang and co-authors from Nanchang University, China, reviewed the literature published on Web of Science within the last five years on PFAS exposure and the link to human liver disease.

Considering epidemiological studies, outcomes of in vitro models, and in vivo rodent studies, the authors reported that PFAS have been linked to hepatic cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, glycolipid metabolism disorder, and bile acid metabolism dysregulation. However, epidemiological evidence only exists for a small subset of PFAS, e.g., perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorononan-1-oic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) which have been positively correlated with liver damage and disease. On the other hand, the health effects of emerging, less well-studied PFAS and PFAS mixtures remain largely unknown. Furthermore, Zhang and co-authors pointed out that the dose administered in in vitro and in vivo studies often exceeds the PFAS levels in the environment. They call for investigations under relevant human exposure levels. In addition to impacts on the human liver, the review summarizes the sources of PFAS, their occurrence in food systems, the characteristics of dietary exposures, and critical knowledge gaps.

Investigating PFAS substitutes

Junjie Ao and co-authors from Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China, summarized the occurrence, toxicokinetic, and negative impacts of PFAS substitutes, the so called polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs). Their review article, published on November 17, 2023, in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, raises awareness for the safety issues connected with these PFAS substitutes.

Microplastics and PFAS

In a viewpoint article published on December 8, 2023, in the journal ACS ES&T Water, Sarawut Sangkham from the University of Phayao, Thailand, pointed out that microplastics may influence the effects of PFAS in the environment. Sangkham descibes that plastic litter represents a combined source of microplastics and PFAS (besides many other chemicals) and highlights that the interaction of MPs and PFAS in the environment is poorly understood. Currently available studies would, for instance, indicate that microplastics act as a carrier for PFAS, mediating their accumulation in animals. Furthermore, “biodegradation of microplastics can either enhance or diminish the release of PFAS pollutants into the environment.�?He called for more research on the combined effect of microplastics and PFAS since their coexistence in the environment could be “a significant threat to ecosystems.�?/p>

Several US state policies address PFAS (FPF reported) and in November 2023, the European Parliament adopted an amended Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), including a ban on PFAS in food packaging (FPF reported).

References

Ao, J. et al. (2023). �?a href="//linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304389423023026" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs) as PFAS substitutes and precursors: An overview.�?Journal of Hazardous Materials. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.133018

Straková, J., et al. (2023). �?a href="//ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-packaging-report-fin2.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Forever Chemicals in Single-use Food Packaging and Tableware from 17 Countries.�?IPEN. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34952.39687 (pdf)

Stroski, K. M., and Sapozhnikova, Y. (2023). �?a href="//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772391723000300?via%3Dihub" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Analysis of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in plastic food storage bags by different analytical approaches.�?Journal of Chromatography Open. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcoa.2023.100106

Sangkham, S. (2023). �?a href="//pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00607?ref=pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Global Perspective on the Impact of Plastic Waste as a Source of Microplastics and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment.�?Science of the Total Environment. DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.3c00607

Zhang, J. et al. (2023). �?a href="//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723065725?via%3Dihub" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Dietary exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: Potential health impacts on human liver.�?ACS ES&T Water. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167945

• Concerns about packaging contamination in organic waste streams “especially with plastic packaging and persistent chemicals�?
• USDA’s continued investment in “innovative manufacturing technologies�?including nanotechnology “to extend shelf life and prevent food loss and waste�?
• USDA “will research food packaging materials from biobased and renewable sourced polymers …[to] protect and enhance food products, eliminate or reduce pathogens, address antimicrobial resistance, extend shelf-life, and reduce food waste and reliance on fossil-fuel-based packaging�? and
• Partnering with the private sector to find upstream solutions. “For example, successful efforts in other countries have included changes in packaging design…�?/li>

Concerns about biodegradable plastics and persistent chemicals in organic waste, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is something that the Food Packaging Forum has mentioned in multiple policy comments in the last year including for the EPA’s draft national strategy to prevent plastic pollution (FPF reported) and the EU’s PFAS restriction proposal (FPF reported).

The US draft food loss and waste strategy is open for public comment through January 4, 2024. The agencies expect to begin implementation in 2024.

References

EPA, USDA, and FDA (December 2, 2023). �?a href="//www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/draft_national_strategy_for_reducing_food_loss_and_waste_and_recycling-organics.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Draft national strategy for reducing food loss and waste and recycling organics.�?US EPA (pdf).

EPA (December 2, 2023). �?a href="//www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/draft-national-strategy-reducing-food-loss-and-waste-and-recycling-organics" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Summary of the draft strategy.�?/p>

EPA (December 2, 2023). �?a href="//www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-releases-draft-national-strategy-reduce-food-loss-and" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Biden-Harris Administration releases Draft National Strategy to Reduce Food Loss and Waste.�?/p>

USDA (December 2, 2023). �?a href="//www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/national-strategy" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Summary of the draft strategy.�?/p>

Read more

EPA, USDA, and FDA (December 5, 2023). �?a href="//www.regulations.gov/commenton/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0415-0001" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="follow external noopener">Draft national strategy for reducing food loss and waste and recycling organics �?comment page.�?Regulations.gov

This call-to-action stems from a Zero Waste Europe report, published in June 2023, which examines the environmental impact of glass, PET plastic, and aluminum drinks containers (FPF reported). The report issued a stark warning, projecting that all three materials are poised to surpass their allocated carbon budgets, with glass demonstrating the highest proportional exceedance. Without intervention, the beverage packaging sector in the EU may exceed its total carbon budget by up to 150%. The report emphasized the importance of a deposit return schemes (DRS) and criticized decisions that have delayed DRS implementation, particularly regarding glass.  

A deposit return scheme is a step in the right direction, but campaigners assert that it alone is insufficient. They emphasize the imperative for radical policy changes to ensure the drinks industry can significantly reduce emissions by 2050. The sentiment is echoed by other civil society organizations, including Action to Protect Rural Scotland (APRS), Surfers Against Sewage, Marine Conservation Society, and Keep Wales Tidy.

Deliberations in the European Parliament on November 22, 2023, have seen the adoption of Parliament’s position on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) that falls short of the transformative measures urgently needed for the drinks industry, according to many stakeholders (FPF reported). 

Reference 

Daily Mail (November 20, 2023) �?/span>Drinks industry needs radical change to meet emissions targets, campaigners warn.�?/span> 

Read more 

Zero Waste Europe (June 22, 2023) �?/span>Decarbonisation of single-use beverage packaging.�?/span> 

As an outcome of the meeting, the INC secretariat has been tasked with revising the Zero Draft by the end of the year based on the input received by Committee members during the meeting. The document outlines all of the options proposed for addressing plastic pollution across the entire life span of plastics. The negotiations will reconvene at the Committee’s fourth meeting on April 21 �?30, 2024, in Ottawa, Canada. Despite a clear interest by many members in establishing intersessional work to prepare key documents, there was no consensus on a mandate for such work before the next round of negotiations in April. This lack of progress raised concerns from many about the Committee’s ability to realistically achieve an effective global plastics treaty by the planned end of the process next year. 

During the INC-3 meeting, three contact groups focused on discussing different aspects of the Zero Draft, with final updates from Group 1 and Group 2 indicating disagreement and a wide range of proposed approaches to address the complexity involved. Group 3 was unable to finish its discussions and provide an updated version of the draft text. Contact Group 1 focused on the technical and regulatory elements within the Zero Draft, Group 2 on financial, implementation, and compliance aspects, and Group 3 on institutional arrangements and general and final provisions not covered during the INC-2 meeting. There is an updated version of the Zero Draft already available that contains the revisions from Groups 1 and 2, and the final revised Zero Draft that contains input from Group 3 is expected to be over 100 pages long once published at the end of this year. This is a significant increase in the length of the draft (compared to the start of the INC-3 meeting), and it will serve as the basis for the continued negotiations in Ottawa next April. 

The absence of consensus on intersessional work at the end of the week led to dissatisfaction by many, with the United States proposing to reopen discussions at the last minute to try and find a way forward. However, this was opposed by Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the meeting was then called to an end. Civil society observer organizations expressed disappointment and emphasized the need for high-ambition countries to prevent such obstacles, and they criticized Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia for negotiating in bad faith. 

Members of the Scientists�?Coalition were very busy throughout the week, answering delegates�?scientific questions, participating in various meetings and side events, and giving insightful talks and presentations to explain the latest relevant independent science to help inform the discussions. Each morning, the group’s scientists set up an informal ‘Ask a Scientist�?pop-up, giving Committee members the chance to easily engage with scientific experts.  

Coalition member Jane Muncke from the Food Packaging Forum spoke during an official side event panel focused on plastic pollution, toxicity, chemicals, and potential risks to human health. The panel was moderated by the World Health Organization and the Government of Uruguay. 

In the last plenary session of the meeting, delegates elected Ecuador’s Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso as INC chair for the remainder of the process. Looking ahead, concerns about still unresolved procedural issues related to consensus and decision-making potentially threaten to obstruct future negotiations. There is also a call to ensure that independent scientific knowledge is implemented in the treaty, emphasizing the use of a precautionary approach and transparent implementation with mandatory global reduction targets. The establishment of a clear platform for independent science to inform the treaty is still missing, and the new INC chair has been urged by scientists at INC-3 to clearly address this as the negotiations move forward. 

References 

UNEP (November 19, 2023) �?/span>Third session of negotiations on an international plastics treaty advance in Nairobi.�?/span> 

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (November 23, 2023) �?/span>Summary of the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiations Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution: 11-19 November 2023.�?/span> 

Read More 

Tosca Ballerini (November 22, 2023). �?/span>Global plastics treaty, third round of negotiations closes without agreement.�?Renewable Matter 

Nicola Jones (November 20, 2023). �?/span>Progress on plastic pollution treaty too slow, scientists say.�?Nature 

Scientists�?Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (November 13 to November 19, 2023) �?/span>INC-3 Daily Updates on LinkedIn.�?/span> 

The UP Scorecard’s change log provides the full details on the changes made and the updated version of the methodology document explains in detail all of the data sources and calculations used to provide each score. The UP Scorecard is still in its beta stage. Any feedback on the tool is welcome and can be provided using this online form. 

The UP Scorecard is a free, web-based tool to assess human and environmental health impacts of foodware and food packaging products. It assesses and compares the products across six metrics: plastic pollution, chemicals of concern, climate, water use, sustainable sourcing, and recoverability. Originally launched in July 2021 (FPF reported), the tool offers companies a first-ever, free, and comprehensive resource for making more sustainable purchasing decisions.   

The UP Scorecard is being developed by SUM’D, a non-profit coalition made up of leading food service companies, non-profit and civil society organizations, and technical experts. Coalition members bring together their respective strengths to work towards reducing the environmental and human health burden of foodware and food packaging used in restaurants and cafeterias. The Food Packaging Forum is a member of SUM’D and also serves as the host organization for the UP Scorecard. 

Read more 

Single-Use Material Decelerator (November 28, 2023) �?/span>UP Scorecard version 0.4 released.�?UP Scorecard 

Single-Use Material Decelerator (November 28, 2023) �?/span>Understanding Packaging (UP) Scorecard Methodology. Version 0.4.�?UP Scorecard 

The proposed regulations encompass various measures aimed at reducing packaging, limiting specific types, and banning the use of harmful chemicals per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging. In addition to general packaging reduction targets of 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035, and 15% by 2040, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are advocating for specific targets to reduce plastic packaging: 10% by 2030, 15% by 2035, and 20% by 2040 (FPF reported). However, many of the ‘unnecessary packaging items�? listed in Annex V of the original proposal had been revised in the final version. Food contact articles such as single-use cups and plates in the dine-in sector were removed from the scope of the new regulation, as well as single-use packaging for fruits and vegetables and single-use sauce and sugar tubs and sachets. 

In a bid to encourage reuse and refill options for consumers, MEPs are seeking clarity on requirements for packaging to be reused or refilled. They propose that distributors of beverages and take-away food in the food service sector provide consumers with the option to bring their own containers (FPF reported). The current version of the regulation also requires that all packaging should be recyclable, meeting stringent criteria to be defined through secondary legislation. Temporary exemptions are outlined for certain materials like wood and wax food packaging. If member states can report recycling rates over 85% for a specific packaging type, this type is excluded from reuse targets.  

Furthermore, MEPs are urging EU countries to ensure that 90% of materials contained in packaging (plastic, wood, ferrous metals, aluminum, glass, paper, and cardboard) are collected separately by 2029. 

Following this adoption, the Parliament is initiating talks with national governments to finalize the legislation once the European Council has adopted its position. 

This revised form of the regulation comes after months of discussion and reportedly record-breaking amounts of lobbying by packaging manufacturers and the food service sector against many of the regulation’s proposed requirements. Many individual MEPs as well as civil society organizations are highly critical and see the regulation as a missed opportunity. 

Reference 

European Parliament (November 22, 2023) �?/span>Parliament adopts revamped rules to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging.�?/span> 

Read more 

Eleonora Vasques (November 17, 2023) �?/span>MEPs denounce packaging waste regulation lobbying as violating ‘Qatargate�?rules.�?Euractiv 

Plastics Europe (November 22, 2023) �?/span>Reaction to European Parliament Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation vote.�?/span> 

Zero Waste Europe (November 22, 2023) �?/span>A position for the wrong century: European Parliament’s vote on the PPWR.�?/span> 

Permanent Materials Alliance (November 22, 2023) �?/span>Permanent Material Alliance welcomes the European Parliament’s ambition on recyclability.�?(pdf) 

Europen (November 22, 2023) �?/span>EUROPEN recognises Parliament’s efforts towards a more science-driven outcome but warns of serious Single Market disruption.�?/span> 

Nathan Canas (November 23, 2023) �?/span>The draft regulation on packaging waste stokes fears about impact on forests.�?Euractiv 

Kira Taylor (November 23, 2023) �?/span>Parliament votes to water down EU’s packaging waste law.�?Euractiv 

Circular (November 23, 2023) �?/span>EU packaging vote labelled “missed opportunity.�?/span>