Food pack­aging chem­ic­als may be harm­ful to human health over long term

The syn­thet­ic chem­ic­als used in the pack­aging, stor­age, and pro­cessing of food­stuffs might be harm­ful to human health over the long term, warn envir­on­ment­al sci­ent­ists in a com­ment­ary in the Journ­al of Epi­demi­ology and Com­munity Health. This is because most of these sub­stances are not inert and can leach into the foods we eat, they say. Des­pite the fact that some of these chem­ic­als are reg­u­lated, people who eat pack­aged or pro­cessed foods are likely to be chron­ic­ally exposed to low levels of these sub­stances through­out their lives, say the authors. And far too little is known about their long term impact, includ­ing at cru­cial stages of human devel­op­ment, such as in the womb, which is ​“surely not jus­ti­fied on sci­entif­ic grounds,” the authors claim. They point out that lifelong expos­ure to food con­tact mater­i­als or FCMs — sub­stances used in pack­aging, stor­age, pro­cessing, or pre­par­a­tion equip­ment — ​“is a cause for con­cern for sev­er­al reas­ons.” These include the fact that known tox­ic­ants, such as form­al­de­hyde, a can­cer caus­ing sub­stance, are leg­ally used in these mater­i­als. Form­al­de­hyde is widely present, albeit at low levels, in plastic bottles used for fizzy drinks and melamine table­ware. Secondly, oth­er chem­ic­als known to dis­rupt hor­mone pro­duc­tion also crop up in FCMs, includ­ing bisphen­ol A, tributylt­in, triclosan, and phthal­ates. ​“Where­as the sci­ence for some of these sub­stances is being debated and policy makers struggle to sat­is­fy the needs of stake­hold­ers, con­sumers remain exposed to these chem­ic­als daily, mostly unknow­ingly,” the authors point out. And, thirdly, the total num­ber of known chem­ic­al sub­stances used inten­tion­ally in FCMs exceeds 4000. Fur­ther­more, poten­tial cel­lu­lar changes caused by FCMs, and in par­tic­u­lar, those with the capa­city to dis­rupt hor­mones, are not even being con­sidered in routine tox­ic­o­logy ana­lys­is, which prompts the authors to sug­gest that this ​“casts ser­i­ous doubts on the adequacy of chem­ic­al reg­u­lat­ory pro­ced­ures.” They admit that estab­lish­ing poten­tial cause and effect as a res­ult of lifelong and largely invis­ible expos­ure to FCMs will be no easy task, largely because there are no unex­posed pop­u­la­tions to com­pare with, and there are likely to be wide dif­fer­ences in expos­ure levels among indi­vidu­als and across cer­tain pop­u­la­tion groups. But some sort of pop­u­la­tion-based assess­ment and bio­mon­it­or­ing are urgently needed to tease out any poten­tial links between food con­tact chem­ic­als and chron­ic con­di­tions like can­cer, obesity, dia­betes, neur­o­lo­gic­al and inflam­mat­ory dis­orders, par­tic­u­larly giv­en the known role of envir­on­ment­al pol­lut­ants, they argue. ​“Since most foods are pack­aged, and the entire pop­u­la­tion is likely to be exposed, it is of utmost import­ance that gaps in know­ledge are reli­ably and rap­idly filled,” they urge.

Ori­gin­al publication:

J. Mun­cke, J. Peterson Myers, M. Scheringer, M. Porta. Food pack­aging and migra­tion of food con­tact mater­i­als: will epi­demi­olo­gists rise to the neotox­ic chal­lenge? Epi­demi­ology and Com­munity Health, 2014 (in press) DOI: 10.1136/jech-2013 – 202593 Source: EurekAlert!