Food Packaging Forum Foundation
FPF
Our organization enables stakeholders to make better decisions by applying the latest science on chemicals in food contact materials and on the environmental impacts of food packaging.
ID: 461883237039-87
Lobbying Activity
15 Apr 2024
The Food Packaging Forum (FPF) is a charitable, independent, science-based organization at the science policy interface. We welcome the opportunity to provide input on the European Commissions draft regulation amending EU 10/2011 and EU 2023/2006. Food contact materials and articles (FCMs) are a relevant source of human exposure to food contact chemicals (FCCs). During the last 50 years, hundreds of studies have been conducted showing that FCCs migrate under normal and intended conditions of FCM use. This implies that humans are chronically exposed to FCCs, including hazardous chemicals which, according to the EUs Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) and its Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F; both published in 2020) should be phased out of FCMs due to their adverse health impacts. Unfortunately, this regulation amendment does not implement such a much-needed phase out and we highlight this as a missed opportunity. The suggested threshold of 1.5 ppb for NIAS is not based on modern science. What is more, we are concerned that the draft regulation will weaken protection of public health, as it legitimizes the presence of unknown and untested FCCs migrating into foodstuffs. In this draft regulation, a threshold of 1.5 ppb for the presence of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) in foodstuffs is proposed. This is justified with an EFSA Scientific Opinion from almost 20 years ago, and it implements a practice currently applied by the US FDA with its Threshold of Regulation (TOR). However, this 1.5 ppb threshold does not hold up to scientific scrutiny for three main reasons: 1. The TOR is based on outdated toxicological data and does not include commonly used uncertainty factors in its extrapolation; 2. The approach ignores modern science regarding non-monotonic dose responses as laid out by the European Food Safety Authority; 3. The TOR assumes that genotoxicity is the most severe health outcome related to chemical exposures, while other chemical effects (or modes of action) that are associated with increasingly prevalent non-communicable diseases are not being assessed at all, in particular for cardiovascular toxicity which is more prevalent today than cancers. It is also important to note that a faithful quantification of unknown substances is not possible, which implies that an assessment of what constitutes only a minor amount will be prone to considerable variation and error. In sum, this provision lacks robust scientific evidence to justify it, and it is also doubtful if it would be enforceable. Ensuring safety of reusables via migration testing. We welcome details on the testing of repeated-use FCMs for example reuse food containers. However, scientific evidence is lacking that shows that 3 subsequent migration tests will be sufficient to determine migration behavior in containers or other FCMs that are used for 50+ cycles, including in food processing. On the other hand, evidence shows that for some types of polymers (polyesters made with bisphenols, thermosets made with melamine formaldehyde) migration of monomers may increase after extended periods of use under certain conditions. The intention of the Commission to require specification for duration of use, is a step in the right direction, but it remains unclear whether such information can be provided with 3 repeat migration tests, or if additional tests (for example after 10, 20 and 50x repeat use under intended or worst case conditions) should be required. Also, the focus on visible signs of use can be misleading because the aging of a food contact article (FCA) cannot only be judged visually, and it is almost impossible to visually distinguish the effects of aging on chemical migration. Additional comments are included in the attached document, including on waste not being clearly defined and on the exclusion of some FCMs (printing inks, adhesives) being problematic. We also provide editorial comments aiming to rectify grammatical errors.
Read full responseResponse to Restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials
8 Mar 2024
The Food Packaging Forum is an independent, science-based organization. We welcome the opportunity to provide input. The EU Commission (EU COM) is acting responsibly by banning BPA in FCMs in response to the risk assessment (RA) by EFSA, which established that the entire EUs human population is exposed to unsafe levels of BPA. At least 106 scientific studies show BPA migration from many types of FCMs. Based on EFSAs RA, all detected incidences of BPA migration pose a risk to health. It is reassuring that EU COM is addressing this important topic. We welcome including additional bisphenols in this restriction, to avoid regrettable substitution. The EU COM addresses all bisphenols with a current and future harmonized classification, which is a novel approach. This approach could be strengthened by expediting assessment of all bisphenols currently in use and still lacking a harmonized classification, or by including all bisphenols that meet the criteria for classification. Such a group-wide restriction would strengthen efforts to protect human health. Additional considerations: 1. Exemptions, transition periods: The EFSA RA highlights that current human exposure is a health risk for the entire population. To protect public health, there is urgency to reduce exposures. Beyond health impacts, there are also economic costs. A recent US study found that plastic chemicals, incl. BPA, amounted to 249 bio.$ in health costs in 2018. It is reasonable to assume costs are of a similar magnitude in the EU. These externalities are paid for by citizens and society, while BPA producers and value chain users of BPA-containing products benefit economically. Given the scientific information, we urge EU COM to acknowledge the urgency with which BPA must be removed from FCMs on the EUs market by significantly reducing transition periods, and by setting sunset dates, no later than 5 years, by when the placing on the market of FCMs containing BPA at detectable levels becomes unlawful. In addition, we suggest a commitment by the EU COM to support Member States with capacity building to adequately enforce the new regulation. 2. Analytical chemistry and guidance for enforcement: Based on EFSAs RA, a specific migration limit (SML) of 12 ng BPA per kg foodstuff (12 ppt) results. Other exposure sources exist. Following the precedent from 2015, one could assume that a SML would be ca. 1 ppt or below. However, such an SML cannot be enforced, because currently there are no sufficiently sensitive analytical methods that can quantify BPA at this exceedingly low level. Consequently, the proposed regulation does not include an SML. This is problematic, because it implies that the new regulation lacks certainty regarding what constitutes a safe level of BPA migration. We would also like to highlight that both business operators and Member States will require guidance on analytical chemistry methods and thresholds. We therefore strongly urge the EU COM to clarify this matter and to make an explicit commitment towards developing advanced BPA detection methods that are sufficiently sensitive and robust for enforcement purposes. Additionally, we suggest providing guidance for avoiding the presence of BPA, for example within the context of the good manufacturing practice (GMP) regulation (EC 2023/2006). 3. Scope of the ban limited to some FCMs: We envision a BPA regulation that aims at reducing BPA exposure. To achieve this with the appropriate urgency, all FCMs should be covered by the scope of this new regulation. But, in the proposal the scope is limited to some FCMs. BPA has been found to migrate from recycled paperboard and from recycled PET bottles. These findings are at odds with EU COM efforts to enable circularity and reduce resource consumption by incentivizing recycling of non-inert food packaging (EC 2022/1616 and PPWR). The proposed regulation is not sufficiently protective of public health, and we highlight this as an opportunity for improvement.
Read full responseResponse to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste
24 Apr 2023
The proposed Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation offers an important opportunity for implementing the EUs ambitious goals as laid out in its Farm To Fork Startegy (F2F), Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) and its Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) regarding the reduction of adverse environmental and human health impacts from packaging. Food packaging is particularly important as it is highly prevalent (making up around 30% of overall household waste in the EU (according to Eurostat), and it strongly contributes to plastic littering (Morales-Caselles et al. 2021). The revision of the P&PWR is therefore an important opportunity for effective measures on problematic food packaging. Accordingly, the P&PWR proposal sets ambitious targets for reuse and recycling. But food packaging is also of very high concern when it comes to the migration of chemicals. Indeed, our own work through the FCCmigex Database has shown that more than 1800 chemicals migrate from FCMs, and at least 388 of the chemicals used to manufacture FCMs and/or migrate from FCMs are hazardous according to the CSS (Zimmermann et al. 2022). Therefore, the presence of hazardous chemicals in food packaging should be prevented, as mandated both by the CSS and the F2F, to enable safe and sustainable food packaging for an effective circular economy. Taking this important step is especially crucial in the context of the proposed P&PWR, as hazardous chemicals that continue to be used in the manufacture of food packaging will be perpetuated in reuse and recycling of said materials and products. The presence of hazardous chemicals in food packaging is a barrier to enabling the circular economy for food packaging and they will hinder the successful implementation of the P&PWR. For various reasons, it is essential that the issue of hazardous chemicals is adequately addressed in the P&PRW, but the wording in the current text of the regulation does not achieve this. Further, we point to challenges with compostable packaging which requires clearly defined criteria regarding chemical safety and full degradation, and with reuse food packaging which requires a definition of inertness. Our detailed comments are provided in the attached file. The Food Packaging Forum (FPF) is a charitable, science-based organization at the science policy interface. FPF is dedicated to raising awareness for hazardous chemicals in and environmental impacts caused by all types of food contact materials and articles (FCMs), including food packaging. Our work enables science-based decision making in the interest of protecting public health and the environment. As our expertise is mainly on chemicals in food packaging, we focus our remarks on this aspect.
Read full responseMeeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)
31 Jan 2023 · Implementation of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, in particular plastics and food contact related aspects of it
18 Jan 2022
The Food Packaging Forum (FPF) is a charitable, science-based organization at the science-policy interface. FPF is dedicated to raising awareness for hazardous chemicals in all types of food contact materials and articles (FCMs and FCAs). Our work enables science-based decision making in the interest of protecting public health and the environment. We welcome the opportunity to provide input on the EU’s draft regulation for recycled plastic FCMs that would repeal the existing regulation EU 282/2008.
The draft regulation tackles the issue of plastic packaging waste: The End-of-life for plastic food packaging needs to fundamentally change and making plastic packaging “circular”, for example by recycling it, is one approach for achieving this. But recycled plastics contain more hazardous chemicals, as scientific evidence is showing, and what is more, also virgin plastics contain known hazardous chemicals and untested chemicals which can be hazardous. This aspect is not sufficiently addressed in the draft regulation for recycled plastic FCMs, especially with the exemption for risk assessment requirements for incidental contamination and with the provision for post ante assessments of novel technologies, where recycled plastics are allowed on the market prior to any independent decontamination efficiency assessment by EFSA. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the draft regulation, instead of protecting human health, would increase population-wide exposures to hazardous chemicals from FCMs. The issue of hazardous chemicals in virgin plastics needs to be addressed in parallel to working on improving recycling for plastics. Indeed, the draft regulation on recycled plastics FCMs is not aligned with the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, which both call for elimination of hazardous chemicals use in FCMs. Any new regulation for recycled plastics FCMs should be aligned with the ongoing revision of the FCM Framework Regulation EU 1935/2004. In addition, the draft regulation promotes the use of single-use plastics instead of supporting the reduction of overall plastic use. Please see the attachment for more details and references to scientific studies.
Thank you for considering our comments in this important issue. We trust that any changes to the EU FCM regulation, including new regulation on recycled plastic FCMs, will be made with the best interest for improving the protection of public health. The present draft regulation for recycled plastic FCM does not fulfil this goal, and therefore should not be left unchanged.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials
29 Jan 2021
The Food Packaging Forum is a charitable, science-based organization dedicated to scientific research and to raising awareness for hazardous chemicals in all types of food contact materials and articles (FCMs and FCAs). We welcome the opportunity to provide input. The IIA describes the challenges related to the existing FCM regulation. However, in our opinion, not only the absence of specific EU rules is of concern, but also the way that safety is currently defined in Art. 3 of the Framework Regulation 1935/2004 is not aligned with the current scientific understanding. The Framework Regulation’s generalized threshold concept assumes there are safe thresholds for chemicals that migrate as default, and this is outdated. Therefore, instead of implicitly assuming that for all chemicals there are safe exposure levels (“quantities which could endanger human health”), modern science needs to be reflected in a revised safety definition that is aligned with the EU Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS).
In particular, the safety definition should explicitly acknowledge that (1) some chemicals have effects at low levels (mutagens, carcinogens, endocrine disrupters) and therefore, all chemicals migrating from FCMs need to be tested for the hazard properties of most concern. Further, chemicals with hazard properties of most concern shall not be present in FCMs (neither intentionally, nor non-intentionally added). (2) Some chemicals have effects at low levels on young children, but they also cross the placenta and affect the developing fetus. Therefore, it is insufficient to remove these chemicals only from children’s products. Instead, they need to be removed from all FCMs because of fetal exposure via mothers. And (3), the mixture toxicity of all chemicals migrating from FCMs is of serious concern for human health and needs to be assessed for finished FCMs and FCAs—moving away from the current “substance-by-substance” assessment. We have summarized the relevant scientific evidence and compiled options for policy makers moving forward, including an iterative multi-stakeholder dialogue to identify solutions https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/news/scientific-consensus-statement-on-food-contact-chemicals-and-human-health.
When prioritizing the assessment and management of substances, not only the risk to consumers should be of interest, but also (1) the human health hazards of the chemicals as such (regardless of migration & consumer exposure) and (2) the environmental hazards of chemicals. FCMs may inadvertently enter the environment and become sources of chemical contamination in different environmental compartments. Therefore, in our opinion environmental hazards must also be addressed for the finished FCMs and FCAs (such as PBT, vPvB, PMT and vPvM). What is more, in a circular economy, where FCMs are increasingly reused and recycled, chemical risk management becomes an even greater challenge. Therefore, a more conservative approach to managing chemicals, that is also aligned with the values of the EU, and that is outlined in the CSS, is to focus on the intrinsic hazard properties of chemicals and to avoid the use of hazardous chemicals where possible and feasible. The CSS points to the essential use concept which should consequently also be adopted in the FCM regulation, to guide companies when selecting and developing chemicals for FCM use. This would also simplify the rules considerably and likely facilitate enforcement. A hazard-based approach to FCM chemicals management will be critical for enabling a clean circular economy.
Further comments are made in the accompanying letter and pertain to: limiting the number of chemicals authorized for FCM manufacture, prioritizing substances of concern based on established methods (https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/news/fpf-publishes-food-contact-chemicals-database), and providing sufficient EU funding for R&D on FCA migration testing. We are available for discussion with the Commission.
Read full responseMeeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Chemicals, Health and Environment Monitoring Trust and Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
9 Jul 2020 · European Green Deal and EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability
Response to Chemicals strategy for sustainability
19 Jun 2020
The Food Packaging Forum (FPF) is a charitable foundation dedicated to raising awareness for the issue of hazardous chemicals in all types of food contact materials and articles, and affecting human and environmental health. FPF thanks the European Commission for this opportunity to provide science-based comments on the roadmap “Chemicals strategy for sustainability”.
We have identified four aspects that we consider most relevant in the context of hazardous chemicals in food contact materials:
1. Achieving better protection of human health
2. Intentional use of hazardous chemicals
3. Inconsistencies in EU chemicals regulation
4. Research needs for innovating products and policy
Please see the attached PDF file for descriptions of all four points, and for a list of references.
Read full responseResponse to A new Circular Economy Action Plan
20 Jan 2020
The Circular Economy offers an important opportunity to reduce food packaging waste, but the use of secondary raw materials in direct food contact is a major concern if chemical safety is not adequately ensured. Therefore, new approaches are needed to address human health considerations related to the presence of hazardous chemicals in food contact articles made from reused and recycled materials. Further, food packaging and other types of products designed for biodegradation must not contribute to persistent chemicals, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, being introduced into the environment.
Food packaging is of high societal value as it enables food storage and thereby contributes to the reduction of food waste. But food packaging also contributes to approximately 1/3 of European household waste. Optimization of food packaging is therefore an important area for transitioning to the circular economy because this will support the aim of „reduced waste generation“, detailed in the roadmap. To achieve this, a secondary raw materials market must ensure that reused and recycled materials for food contact are safe, and this is in fact a major challenge. Here, we wish to raise awareness for this aspect.
Indeed, some food contact articles made of black plastics, sourced from the European market, have recently been found to contain brominated flame retardants (BFRs). BFRs are present in Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), but they are not authorized for plastic food contact and due to their hazard properties should not be present in any kind of food contact article. As consequence of these findings, more controls of imports, especially for the presence of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, such as BFRs, should be put in place, and appropriate measures should be taken in response to detection of non-compliance (i.e. removal of these articles from the market). The hypothesis for the presence of BFRs in black plastics food contact materials is that WEEE plastics are illicitly recycled into new articles intended for food contact, likely outside of Europe.
Mineral oils and other types of chemicals of concern have been found in recycled paperboard for food contact use. Contrary to plastics, there is no EU-wide, harmonized regulation for paperboard in contact with food, despite it being very widely used. Therefore, paperboard food contact regulation which also takes the presence of recycled non-food grade materials into account and details how the safety of this food contact material is ensured is urgently needed. Indeed, a report by the European Parliament in 2016 concluded that current food contact regulation does not adequately ensure the safety of European consumers.
The waste-food packaging interface is a challenge and it is currently being addressed. Indeed, chemical safety of food packaging is one of the main obstacles in transitioning to a circular economy, but more efforts need to be taken to ensure it. Notably, the use of compostable single-use food packaging may lead to an increase of highly persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and thereby creating an unintended environmental contamination issue. Therefore, we urge the Commission to invest appropriate funds into research and development for tools that permit ensuring chemical safety also for food contact articles which are made from recycled materials and/or intended for biodegradation, such as (high-throughput) bioassays or automated chemical screening. Importantly, issues of relevance for chemical risk assessment of food contact materials need to be taken into consideration, such as mixture toxicity and environmental persistence of chemical constituents.
This Action Plan is an important step that will ensure adequate protection of public health, based on the precautionary principle. We thank the Commission for this opportunity to provide input. Detailed references/evidence are provided in the attached file.
Read full response