On March 19, 2024, a peer-reviewed scientific 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 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). “.” Environmental Science & Technology. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.3c03702
Read more
US FDA (March 28, 2024). “”