EXPERT REACTION: Food packaging chemicals - FSANZ total diet study

It seems a sensible approach by FSANZ, especially to make individual assessments of the 30 chemicals. It is reassuring to the public that the testing regime found either no concerns or mild concerns about slight migration into food for 28 of the 30 tested. Recommendation of further work on those two phthalates and on a wider range of foods and packagings is prudent and demonstrates that the public interest is being served.

It's good to know that the levels of packaging chemicals in Australian foods are very low by international standards and mostly below levels of concern set by the European Union.  In some cases the levels are declining and that's even better news.  I hope this trend continues.

FSANZ are to be complimented for extending the range of chemicals they tested for, substances recently identified as being of concern are covered. 

Regulatory and avisory levels, have been introduced in many jurisdictions and bans apply for some components in some circumstances, for example, where children may be exposed.  These changes address content and exposure to that content, so both both components of the risk equation are reduced.

Canny manufacturers can see the way the winds are blowing.  They are seeking alternatives, but we are not there yet and of course there are some laggards.  Although it's not always easy to replace a custom-designed chemical, experience shows that it's usually posisble, even if a small cost-increase is involved.

The results released by FSANZ are potentially concerning in regard to food-related exposure to phthalate chemicals, as animal studies have demonstrated that phthalate exposure causes adverse effects on development and health, and human biomonitoring studies are continuing to link phthalates to health conditions. 

However, we must recognize firstly that we are exposed to phthalates from many different sources, so it must be considered whether the phthalates present in some foods do substantially contribute to our overall phthalate exposure.  

Secondly, we actually have very little direct information about the human health impacts of phthalates, as most toxicology studies have been performed using concentrations that do not reflect typical exposure levels and our knowledge of the effects of exposure to combinations of phthalates or phthalates plus other chemicals is wholly inadequate. 

Therefore, until more studies are done, it would be wise to be cautious.  We need to ask whether the FSANZ ‘watching brief’ is sufficient, and what the proposed future monitoring and surveillance entails. 

As new discoveries on human health impacts of phthalates are published, these findings must then be balanced with the obvious benefits that chemical use in the food industry provide - the convenience of large-scale production, packaging and storage of food that we all take for granted.  If phthalates are phased out and alternatives adopted, there must be adequate safety testing to minimize the risk of introducing a phthalate replacement that is greater cause for concern.
 

Food packaging is an important part of food safety as it prevents foods being contaminated during storage and sale, as well as improving their shelf life. However, there is the possibility that some of the materials in packaging may migrate into the foods to levels that could potentially affect health.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the regulatory body in charge of food safety, routinely surveys foods to ensure exposure to health risks from food contamination is low to negligible. The recently released study looks at chemicals that can migrate into foods, following up a previous survey in 2010.

The good news is for that for the vast majority of the 30 chemicals tested for, very few foods had detectable levels of these chemicals, and those that did fell well below the international acceptable intake levels. This includes Bisphenol A, which has been the focus of recent public concern. These results are consistent with the findings of the 2010 survey.

Two phthalates, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP), were found at higher that recommended levels in a very few foods,  and further studies will be undertaken as well as consultation with industry to ensure reduced levels. Even so, the risks identified were low. In the case of DINP, out of 48 foods tested, high levels were found in a single sample of peanut butter, one hamburger and one pizza. You would need to consume 200g of that peanut butter or 0.6 Kg of that pizza daily to exceed the tolerable daily intake level.

Overall the study again confirms that our foods are generally safe, and we do very well by international standards