The peer-reviewed commentary “Health impacts of exposures to synthetic chemicals in foodstuff” published in Nature Medicine shares the UP Scorecard as a tool to support decision makers across industry and government in reducing the overall health and environmental impacts of food packaging.
Led by Dr. Jane Muncke, Managing Director of the Food Packaging Forum and Member of the Single-Use Material Decelerator (SUM’D) Executive Board, the article describes how exposure to synthetic food contact chemicals (FCCs) linked with food packaging and the increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) likely is a significant and underappreciated contributor to adverse health effects. Based on existing research, the commentary provides an overarching look at the issue, outlines future research needs, and offers current options and novel approaches to support a sustainable transition to a safer food system.
Chemicals of concern in food packaging and ultra-processed foods (UPFs)
The authors identify four relevant routes by which synthetic FCCs could contaminate food, including transportation, food processing, food packaging, and food preparation. Throughout each of these stages, foodstuffs interact with food contact materials leading to migration, whereby chemicals leach or gas out into the foodstuffs. An estimated 100,000 FCCs exist, whether intentionally or unintentionally added. Many of the chemicals that have been found in foodstuffs, including well known examples such as bisphenols, phthalates, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), show evidence of harming human health, especially during early development.
According to the commentary, UPFs in particular are an understudied source of increased exposure to FCCs. While low nutritional value and intentional and non-intentional food additives are understood to account for many of the detrimental health impacts of UPFs, these factors do not explain all of them. UPFs are often pre-packaged and stored for weeks, months, or even years and some are heated directly in their packaging to extend shelf life, increasing the release of FCCs. A hypothesis has therefore emerged suggesting that the nutritional content as well as the synthetic chemicals that are intentionally added and those that migrate during processing, preparation, and from food packaging are responsible for the negative health effects of UPFs. Manufacturers should therefore be mindful of the potential impact of their food packaging choices.
Unlike other life cycle assessments (LCAs), the UP Scorecard considers chemicals of concern in food packaging. Within the UP Scorecard, food packaging and foodware receives a qualitative chemicals of concern score based on the presence of FCCs that have known health hazards including persistence, bioaccumulation, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity upon repeated exposure, or endocrine disruption. The chemicals are further prioritized into four tiers based on published evidence for human exposure and migration from food contact materials. The inertness of different materials as well as the type of food being packaged are also considered to take into account the migration of non-intentionally added substances.
Future research directions
Because of their associated health effects, FCCs are estimated to place a significant burden on healthcare systems. The commentary authors argue that this is a compelling reason to invest in research to better understand the impacts of FCCs on health. They highlight three priority areas for research, including improving the identification of hazardous chemicals by developing new testing approaches, innovating to achieve safer and more inert food contact materials with less FCC migration, and rethinking business models within the food industry.
The information within the UP Scorecard could be valuable to users looking to innovate new, more inert food packaging and foodware. The chemicals of concern score allows for the easy comparison of the potential health impact of different products. New products are added with each update, allowing users to test out a growing number of solutions. The ability to customize products also allows users to evaluate the effects of different parameters, such as adding or removing recycled or compostable content.
Policy recommendations to reduce the impact of FCCs
To conclude the commentary, the authors identify and discuss four priority areas for policy interventions. They argue that by harnessing current knowledge and funding the research areas described without conflicts of interest, regulators can support a policy agenda that emphasizes disease prevention. The recommended policy areas include overhauling current chemical regulations, creating policy incentives for safe and sustainable food contact materials, reducing food packaging waste, and implementing regulatory interventions to prevent the overconsumption of UPFs.
In providing policy recommendations, the commentary cautions against rebound effects when addressing FCCs, which may have unintended consequences for health and the environment. Instead of taking a siloed approach that tackles a single issue, policymakers could adopt holistic approaches. As a solution, the authors recommend using the UP Scorecard. Its comprehensive assessment with six metrics (plastic pollution, chemicals of concern, climate, water use, sustainable sourcing, and recoverability) provides a way to easily compare the trade-offs of different food packaging and foodware options, avoiding unintended consequences.
