When we buy food, we’re often buying packaging, too. From cherries to Cheez-It® crackers,
modern foods are processed, transported, stored, and sold in specialized materials
that account, on average, for half the cost of the item, according to Joseph Hotchkiss,
a professor in Michigan State University’s School of Packaging. Consumer-level food
packaging serves a wide range of functions, such as providing product information,
preventing spoilage, and protecting food during the journey from production to retail
to pantry, fridge, or freezer. That’s why food producers lavish so much time and money
on it.
But what happens when these valuable and painstakingly engineered containers leach
chemicals and other compounds into the food and drink they’re designed to protect?
Such contamination is nearly ubiquitous; it happens every day, everywhere packaged
food is found, with all common types of packaging, including glass, metal, paper,
and plastic.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
Many manufacturers are eager to alleviate the problem of chemical migration from food
packaging, but progress in identifying viable alternative materials has been incremental
at best.
© Joseph Tart/Brogan & Partners
Even as awareness of the issue grows, large-scale solutions that are scientifically
and financially viable remain out of reach. The challenges in reaching them are many.
Yet some of the world’s leading health authorities and largest food producers are
working toward fixes (and in cases already deploying them), despite the absence of
scientific consensus or regulatory requirements around most food-packaging chemicals
of concern.
The Winding Path of Chemical Replacement
Due primarily to consumer demand, health concerns represent the largest force driving
innovation within the food-packaging industry today, Hotchkiss says. “I believe the
safety issues will continue to grow, and those who can assure consumers that they
are concerned about it and are doing what they can to address it will be rewarded
in the marketplace,” he says. “Those that don’t will be punished in the marketplace.”
People around the world are familiar with bisphenol A (BPA) and concerns about its
migration into food and drink from plastic bottles, metal cans, and other consumer
products. To date U.S. and European authorities have concluded, based on the available
evidence, that the levels of BPA that currently occur in foods are safe for all consumers.
5
,
6
Other scientists suggest the experimental evidence for BPA’s adverse health effects
is strong enough to warrant removing the chemical from food-use applications as a
precaution.
7
,
8
In recent years U.S. manufacturers voluntarily abandoned the use of BPA in baby bottles,
sippy cups, and infant-formula packaging, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) formally ended its authorizations of these uses thereafter.
9
Beyond our borders, several other countries have banned BPA from some infant products,
including Canada, the European Union, South Africa, China, Malaysia, Argentina, Brazil,
and Ecuador.
10
France went even further with its recently implemented ban of BPA from all packaging,
containers, and utensils that come into contact with food.
11
The BPA debate illuminates many of the challenges involved in stemming chemical migration.
As France recognized with its ban, prohibitions for baby products alone don’t address
the fact that BPA exists in countless consumer products and food-packaging materials
to which infants and expectant mothers,
12
among other susceptible populations, may still be exposed—such as metal beverage and
food cans, which are often lined with BPA-based epoxy resins.
13
BPA is just one of many known or suspected endocrine disruptors commonly found in
food packaging that can migrate into food and drink.
14
,
15
Furthermore, endocrine disruptors from plastics are far from the only class of potentially
harmful chemicals that can leach into food or drink from food packaging; depending
on factors including temperature, storage time, and physicochemical properties, a
wide variety of compounds—including components of coatings and films, adhesives and
glues, and inks and pigments—can migrate from packaging materials.
16
,
17
For these reasons, Laura Vandenberg, an assistant professor of environmental health
at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, believes most existing bans on BPA do
little to ensure food safety. “This was a very empty victory, I think, to focus on
BPA and baby bottles,” she says.
Alternative Plastics
Sure enough, in some applications BPA was replaced with other bisphenols, including
BPS and BPF, which laboratory experiments indicate have estrogenic effects at least
as pronounced as those of BPA.
18
In others, including baby bottles, polycarbonates were replaced by alternative plastics
with migration issues of their own.
19
Chemists are now on the hunt for effective alternatives to BPA. To date no one has
identified any drop-in fixes that will work in all the same applications, for the
same or a lesser cost, with an established lack of estrogenic activity (now known
in the marketplace as “EA-free”). But partial solutions are beginning to appear.
One of the most widely available is a polymer called Tritan that can replace traditional
polycarbonate in clear, hard plastics used for water and baby bottles. According to
its manufacturer, Eastman Chemical Company, Tritan is free of estrogenic activity
within the human body.
20
Not everyone agrees. In 2011 a pair of affiliated firms called PlastiPure and CertiChem
published a study showing the potential for endocrine disruption in Tritan.
21
This sparked a lawsuit from Eastman, which it later won.
22
At the core of the case was the question of how best to detect and define estrogenic
activity; the two sides used different tests that each insisted was accurate.
23
Tritan is still used widely in hard-plastic bottles sold by Nalgene, CamelBak, Nathan,
and other brands, while PlastiPure and CertiChem continue to support the development
of other alternative plastics and products, including food packaging, says chief economic
officer Mike Usey. In addition to testing and consulting, the sister companies will
soon expand into product development, Usey says. “We’ve had so much interest in the
last year and a half from consumers for safer products, and a lack of traction with
manufacturers, that we’ve decided to spin off a product company.”
But full-scale solutions remain at least a few iterations away, says John Warner of
the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry. “Something like reinventing plastic
isn’t going to happen in a day, a month, or a year,” he says. “This isn’t a matchmaking
game. It’s not like the solutions are out there, if only the companies could be matched
up with those solutions. I really feel we are inventions away from success.”
Much of Warner’s personal research centers on developing biobased plastics (i.e.,
derived from renewable biomass sources) that are safer, cheaper, and as effective
as traditional fossil-fuel plastics for food packaging. However, plant-based plastics
still may contain some of the same harmful additives and manufacturing by-products
(known as non-intentionally added substances) that can migrate into food and drink.
These plastics do offer one distinct advantage, Warner says: “Because bioplastics
are new, they have less of an incumbent history, so designers, inventors, and developers
can create a better formulation of additives that have less impact on human health
and the environment.” In other words, although it doesn’t guarantee success, there
may be more opportunity for creativity and innovation around bioplastics than with
traditional plastics that are more entrenched in industry, he speculates.
Packaging Pathways
These are just a few of the potential routes of chemical migration from food packaging
itself. However, foods and beverages also can be contaminated prior to packaging,
through handling and storage of either finished products or their ingredients.
© Roy Scott
A Silver-Bullet Lining?
Beyond reusable hard plastic bottles, the most prominent source of BPA in food-contact
materials is the ubiquitous metal can. The BPA-based epoxy resin linings of cans serve
a dual purpose by protecting the container from acidic or otherwise corrosive elements
in foods as well as protecting food and drink from the can’s metallic taste.
Within this sector of the food-packaging industry, researchers have worked for years
to identify a replacement for standard BPA-containing epoxies that performs just as
well across the same range of food and beverage types.
24
Such a coating must be physically stable and resistant to all manner of foods and
beverages, and, in the case of food cans, must maintain its performance at elevated
temperatures while foods are being sterilized after sealing. No replacement has yet
emerged. But efforts now under way could pay dividends in the not-too-distant future.
Valspar Corporation, a Minneapolis-based manufacturer that bills itself as the number-one
global supplier of coatings for metal packaging, is motivated to develop an EA-free
can lining for use with a wide variety of foods. And staff toxicologist Mark Maier,
who’s leading the company’s efforts, thinks he’s found it. He says Valspar has developed
a replacement coating that several academic laboratories have shown to be EA-free.
But even if testing validates Valspar’s invention, that doesn’t guarantee economic
viability. “The supply chain challenge may be bigger than the safety challenge,” he
says. “It doesn’t matter how good your technology is—if it costs too much, nobody’s
going to buy it.”
Daniel Schmidt, an associate professor in the Department of Plastics Engineering at
the University of Massachusetts Lowell, is leading another group in search of a new
can lining. Schmidt’s lab has already made an epoxy from 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol
(CBDO), the same monomer that is at the heart of Tritan,
25
and is working to scale it up. Funding to date has come from the university and its
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, but Schmidt says a private company has recently agreed
to provide support for continued research into applications that meet its needs, primarily
in the beverage sector.
As to whether Schmidt’s design will ultimately show any estrogenic activity, which
CertiChem’s tests on Tritan suggest it could, he admits there’s some uncertainty.
“We do need to do more to ensure that everything is okay in all respects,” he says.
“One of the main reasons we chose CBDO was for its structure, which bears little or
no resemblance to known endocrine disruptors. This doesn’t guarantee success, but
it’s a good place to start.”
Other large corporations including Dow Chemical have also alluded to their own efforts
to develop safer drop-in can-lining solutions.
26
And a number of natural and organic food brands, including Muir Glen, Eden Foods,
Wild Planet, and Amy’s Kitchen, have already touted a transition to BPA-free can linings—but
details are spotty as to what alternatives they’ve embraced or what level of endocrine
disruption or migration the replacements represent.
Amy’s, for example, gives no information on its website as to what alternative formulation
it is using, although it does say that low levels of BPA are still migrating into
its food.
27
In 1999 Eden Foods switched its linings for low-acid foods to oleoresin, a mixture
of oil and resin extracted from plants such as pine and balsam fir, but high-acid
foods like tomatoes are still canned with liners formulated with BPA, or bottled in
jars with lids containing BPA.
28
Pressure up the Supply Chain
Nestlé Corporation, the world’s largest food producer with thousands of brands selling
nearly any prepackaged food one can imagine, must manage the entire spectrum of food-packaging
materials and their potential risks. It therefore has a considerable incentive to
ensure the safety of its packaging.
The Swiss company’s food-packaging safety program got its start after a huge 2005
recall caused by the discovery that traces of isopropyl thioxanthone, a chemical used
to cure packaging inks, was migrating through paper cartons into ready-to-drink baby
formula sold by the company.
29
“Nestlé got burned and said, ‘That will never happen again,’” says Stephen Klump,
the company’s head of packaging quality and safety. “That was a big wake-up call for
the industry.” Eventually Nestlé published guidance for inks that prohibits more than
50 acrylates, solvents, photoinitiators, and pigments.
30
These prohibitions are based on health risks (recognized by Nestlé or perceived by
the public), migration potential, and, in some cases, negative impacts on taste, smell,
or color.
The company also has a policy against food contact with BPA, phthalates, and recycled
paperboard, which can contain harmful chemicals derived from sources not originally
intended for use in food packaging—such as newspaper ink or BPA-/BPS-containing thermal
receipts that are added to recycling bins. In addition, Klump says Nestlé aims to
phase out BPA from all its can linings and polycarbonate plastics by the end of 2015,
but he did not specify which alternatives the company is embracing. In February of
this year, Nestlé announced it is developing guidance on packaging adhesives in order
to clarify its position on additional substances of concern.
31
The company asks suppliers to formally declare compliance with its guidances as part
of their contract, but does not enforce them; Klump says it can be hard to verify
total compliance. Nevertheless, through these directives, Nestlé can use its sheer
size to spur innovation within the food-packaging industry, and companies selling
safer inks and adhesives can tout their compliance with Nestlé’s guidance as a benchmark,
as SPGPrints has done with its new line of low-migration ultraviolet inkjet inks.
32
Other large food producers hold similar sway, says Jane Muncke, managing director
and chief scientific officer of the Switzerland-based Food Packaging Forum, a nonprofit
foundation formed in 2012 to communicate information about food packaging and health.
“They have such big buying power they’ll just switch suppliers if they’re not happy
with the product.”
In this sense, the onus is often on packaging suppliers to make their products safer,
which many are trying to do. A number of manufacturers have introduced new barrier
films for dry foods such as pasta, cereal, and rice, among them Clondalkin Flexible
Packaging,
33
Innovia Films,
34
Smurfit-Kappa,
35
Imerys Kaolin,
36
BASF,
37
MM Karton,
38
and Sappi Fine Paper Europe.
39
These barriers are intended to prevent label inks and their constituent chemicals
from migrating from the exterior of the package into the food, as well as stop mineral
oils and other harmful substances present within recycled paper packages.
40
Migration of mineral oils has become a significant concern for some European consumers
following a European Food Safety Authority probe into the issue.
41
,
42
Incremental Changes
While it’s clear that a number of packaging manufacturers are eager to switch to alternative
packaging whether required to or not, progress to date has been incremental at best.
“The unqualified success may be out there, and I really do hope that these companies
are developing them, but for the most part what I have seen are just-barely-studied
alternatives,” says Vandenberg. Many researchers and innovators in the field who believe
they’re on the right track have yet to see their eureka moment, if indeed it’s coming.
Still, change is happening. Consumer demand in Europe contributed to the development
and rollout of the world’s first PVC- and plasticizer-free glass-jar lid by German
packaging manufacturer Pano, says Rolf Rohrkasse, manager of product and material
development for the company. Since 2011 Pano has sold 450 million of its BLUESEALÆ
lids in Europe, but it has yet to break into the U.S. market. However, Pano is in
discussions with Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé, among others, to expand its global
reach.
The caps still contain a plastic seal—a polyolefin-based elastomer called Provalin®.
43
While migration is not eliminated, Pano claims that migration levels are significantly
lower compared with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and its many additives.
44
(The rubbery gaskets on almost all glass-jar lids available today contain PVC, which
can leach a host of chemicals, including phthalate plasticizers, directly into foods.
45
This is particularly true for fatty and oily foods.
46
)
However, like relying on dry-food barriers to reduce migration rather than eliminating
the harmful chemicals in the first place, Muncke sees Pano’s lids as only a small
step in the right direction. “It’s kind of a half-solution,” she says. “It doesn’t
solve the whole issue.”
Some nongovernmental organizations are taking steps to get specific chemicals removed
from food packaging.
47
Within the last year the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has teamed with
citizens’ groups in petitioning the FDA to withdraw its decades-old approvals of a
handful of chemicals, including perchlorate, an endocrine disruptor used to produce
rubber gaskets and to reduce static charge in plastic dry-food packaging, and long-chain
perfluorocarboxylates, used to greaseproof paper and paperboard.
48
The latter have been largely abandoned by U.S. manufacturers but increasingly are
employed in India and China and are still legal to import and use, says Tom Neltner,
an independent consultant.
Maricel Maffini, a consultant and former senior scientist with the NRDC, is concerned
that the development of safer alternatives is being hampered by a lack of regulatory
incentives and oversight. “There is no regulatory pressure for innovation,” she says.
“And when [manufacturers] do take the initiative to go for an alternative, we don’t
know the safety profile of that alternative, we don’t know the exposure, we don’t
know if it gets metabolized when it gets into the environment. So there are still
a lot of systemic improvements that we need.”
Schmidt points out that even if consumer packaging is totally free of harmful substances,
there are still many opportunities during processing and handling for foods and beverages
to become contaminated, even before they are packaged. As an illustration, he points
to a study of phthalates in olive oil, which found contamination in every sample tested,
but no significant difference in the degree of contamination between oils packaged
in glass, plastic, or metal.
49
“Packaging is important,” he says, “but the issue is even bigger still. Make the packaging
perfect, and you’ve still got [contamination] coming from further up the supply chain.”
Muncke, for one, is prepared to concede that a true food-packaging panacea may not
be anywhere around the next bend—especially when one takes into account the environmental
impacts of producing and discarding so much packaging, and the carbon footprint of
the global food system. “If you want to preserve food by using packaging, then you
have to make compromises,” she says. “There is no packaging that is perfect.”
Safety Testing
As migration concerns drive chemists, food producers, and packaging manufactures to
seek out and market new chemicals and materials, the threshold for deeming a substance
“safe” is likely to become more hotly contested. Although traditional toxicity tests
can be used to evaluate some outcomes of concern, endocrine disruption poses a particular
challenge due to the fact that such chemicals may produce effects in experimental
models at very low doses.
50
A variety of testing regimes, tools, and assays exist to detect endocrine disruption
in individual chemicals and final products. But not all are created equal, and the
choice of one over another can be a matter of real consequence.
Some of the field’s leading figures in the United States, including Pete Myers of
Environmental Health Sciences, Terry Collins of the Institute for Green Science at
Carnegie Mellon University, and Jerrold Heindel and Thaddeus Shug of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, have developed an endocrine-disruption
detection system known as TiPED that is designed to help chemists formulate safer
chemicals.
51
TiPED involves a series of tests with ascending sensitivities: computational assessments,
high-throughput cellular assays, cell process assays, live-animal testing with fish
and amphibians, and, ultimately, mammalian testing.
Meanwhile, a European program known as LIFE-EDESIA—designed to identify three to five
EA-free alternatives each for bisphenols, phthalates, and parabens—has developed a
simpler in silico and in vitro tiered structure that foregoes any animal testing.
52
And Nestlé has promoted its own computational screening method, while Valspar employs
four or five assays in a tiered system that staff toxicologist Mark Maier says is
essentially the same as TiPED, except it stops shy of animal testing. “The trick is
when do you stop [searching for effects],” Maier says. “It just depends on who’s talking.”