On September 10, 2018, the Food Packaging Forum (FPF) published a fact sheet on food packaging and human health on its website. The fact sheet covers the different materials in contact with food, chemical migration, health concerns and knowledge gaps, as well as consumer expectations and legal requirements. The fact sheet also provides links to further resources where practical, science-based advice on how to reduce exposure to chemicals from food packaging can be found. Download the fact sheet as PDF here.

Read more

FPF (September 10, 2018). “Fact sheet – Food packaging and human health.”

The 11^th BioDetectors conference took place on September 13-14, 2018, in Aachen, Germany. The event was hosted by RWTH Aachen University and sponsored by BioDetectionSystems (BDS). Several presentations focused on the use of bioassays in food contact materials (FCMs) analysis, while others discussed applications in environmental analysis.

Amaury Patin and Karma Fussel from the Nestlé Research Centre, Lausanne, Switzerland, discussed how Nestlé uses bioassays to assess the safety of food packaging, among other applications. Patin discussed an example of 1,4,7-trioxacyclotridecane-8,13-dione (also called AADEG cyclic ester, CAS 6607-34-7), a compound found to migrate from polyurethane-based adhesives at about 30 ppb. After in vitro digestion, 60-80% of a starting amount remained in cyclic form, while the rest was hydrolyzed into linear form. The linear form was found to cause a stronger activation of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), while the cyclic form was active in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) assay for dioxin-like compounds and in the NF-E2 related factor (Nrf2) assay detecting oxidative stress. Further characterization and risk assessment are ongoing.

For the most part, the endocrine assays included in the Nestlé’s pipeline focus on the measurement of (anti)estrogenic and (anti)androgenic activities only. For these assays, Nestlé developed metabolic activation methods and approaches to differentiate true receptor inhibition from cytotoxicity-mediated effects. Fussel informed that these assays have now been automatized to allow for higher throughput analysis at Nestlé.

In 2017, a review by scientists of the Food Packaging Forum (FPF) highlighted the need to examine effects mediated by receptors other than ER or androgen receptor (AR) (FPF reported), such as thyroid receptors (TRs) (FPF reported) or peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) (FPF reported). Recently, Nestlé used PPAR gamma (PPARγ) assay to test bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7) and several BPA analogs. The findings were reported in an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology In Vitro on August 20, 2018. All tested bisphenols showed little or no agonistic activity, but exhibited a “reasonable” antagonism of PPARγ. The authors concluded that “it seems probable that there are additional obesogenic effects of these chemicals which would not be detected by this assay.”

Elisa Mayrhofer from the Austrian Research Institute for Chemistry and Technology (OFI) and Bernhard Rainer from the University of Applied Sciences, both Vienna, Austria, reported on the progress of the currently ongoing MigraTox project (FPF reported). Among the 114 FCM samples analyzed so far, 25% were cytotoxic, 32% were ER-active, and about 10% each showed anti-ER, anti-AR, and p53 activity. Furthermore, 11% of samples were positive and 13% equivocal in the Ames assay for directly acting mutagens.

Vera Baumgartner from the Swiss Quality Testing Services (SQTS) introduced the ongoing work on the optimization of a new analytical method based on high performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) coupled with bioassays, the so-called “planar” assays. A planar assay with yeast estrogen screen (planarYES) was shown to be more sensitive than the conventional YES assay. Using planarYES, Alan Bergmann from the Oekotox Centre, Switzerland, detected estrogenic activity in several food cans; identification of the active substances is currently ongoing. Overall, Baumgartner characterized planar assays as an “excellent approach to combine physical and chemical detection.”

BDS is a company commercializing CALUX bioassays. CALUX stands for Chemical Activated Luciferase gene eXpression. These assays are based on modified cell lines containing a luciferase reporter gene controlled by a promoter being made responsive to specific chemicals, such as estrogens, androgens, or aryl hydrocarbons. The presence of targeted chemicals leads to an increase in luciferase production, which can be detected with a quantifiable light reaction. Several ongoing projects at BDS pursue further assay optimization or development of new assays. For example, the predictivity of the assays for estrogenic and anti-androgenic activity has been recently improved by complementing them with a system mimicking hepatic metabolism in vivo. Berenice Collet presented a novel suite of CALUX bioassays for thyroid receptor β and transthyretin transporter disrupting activities.

The project ReSolve, presented by Barbara Van Vugt-Lussenburg from BDS, uses CALUX bioassays to assess the safety of novel bio-based solvents derived from non-food carbohydrates, aimed to replace toluene (CAS 108-88-3) and N‑methyl-2-pyrrolidone. BDS scientists also used CALUX bioassays to assess safety of bio-based plastics. In this project, migrates from food-grade polyethylene (PE) and from brightly colored flexible polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were found to be estrogenic. The authors concluded that “the panel of human-cell based reporter gene bioassays is a useful tool to evaluate the safety of packaging materials and plastic additives.”

References

Dusserre, C., et al. (2018). “Using bisphenol A and its analogs to address the feasibility and usefulness of the CALUX-PPARγ assay to identify chemicals with obesogenic potential.” Toxicology in Vitro 53:208-221.

Marin-Kuan, M., et al. (2017). “Differentiating true androgen receptor inhibition from cytotoxicity-mediated reduction of reporter-gene transactivation in-vitro.” Toxicology in Vitro 45:359-365.

Mollergues, J., et al. (2017). “Incorporation of a metabolizing system in biodetection assays for endocrine active substances.” ALTEX 34: 389-398.

Schoenborn, A., et al. (2017). “Unprecedented sensitivity of the planar yeast estrogen screen by using a spray-on technology.” Journal of Chromatography A 1530:185-191.

Van der Linden, S., et al. (2014). “Development of a panel of high-throughput reporter-gene assays to detect genotoxicity and oxidative stress.” Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 760:23-32.

Van Vugt, B., et al. (2017). “Effect-based safety assessment of bio-based chemicals: a case study on bio-based plastics.” Poster (pdf).

Van Vugt-Lussenburg, B., et al. (2018). “Incorporation of metabolic enzymes to improve predictivity of reporter gene assay results for estrogenic and anti-androgenic activity.” Reproductive Toxicology 75: 40-48.

A review article published on September 26, 2018 in the peer-reviewed journal Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A addressed the “suitability of the Ames test to characterize genotoxicity of food contact material [(FCM)] migrates.”  

Bernhard Rainer and colleagues from the Department of Applied Life Sciences, University of Applied Sciences, FH Campus Wien, Vienna, Austria, explain that a risk assessment of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) in FCMs requires that a “potential presence of genotoxic NIAS in FCM migrate” be evaluated. This “raises questions about the limit at which genotoxins can be detected in complex mixtures such as FCM migrates, and if such limits of detection (LOD) would be compatible with safety.” One of the tests often used to test for genotoxicity of FMC migrates is the Ames assay (FPF reported). Therefore, the present review focused on evaluating its suitability for this purpose.  

The scientists searched the literature for the “lowest effective concentrations of packaging-related and other chemicals in test media” of Ames test and “used [them] as surrogates of LODs to be benchmarked against a value of 0.01 mg/kg (10 ppb) in migrates.” This value is a “pragmatic threshold used in FCM safety evaluation to prioritize substances requiring proper identification and risk assessment.” The performed analysis showed that “only potent genotoxins can theoretically be detectable at a level of 0.01 mg/kg in migrates or food.” Among the genotoxic chemicals associated with FCMs, only a “minority (10%) . . . could be picked up [by the Ames assay] at a level of 0.01 mg/kg or lower.” 

The scientists conclude that “the Ames test in its present form cannot be used as standalone method for evaluating the genotoxic potential of FCM migrates, but must be used together with other information from analytical chemistry and FCM manufacturing.” 

Read more 

Rainer, B., et al. (2018). “Suitability of the Ames test to characterize genotoxicity of food contact material migrates.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A (published September 26, 2018). 

Ksenia Groh and Jane Muncke (2017). “In vitro toxicity testing of food contact materials: State-of-the-art and future challenges.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 16: 1123-1150.

In an invited review article published on September 2, 2018, in the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Richard Pleus and Lisa Corey from the U.S. consulting agency Intertox evaluated “whether environmental levels of perchlorate are sufficient to cause the most sensitive adverse health effects.” The authors considered the “adverse impact on the developing fetal brain” to be the endpoint that is the “most significant to public health.” Therefore, they reviewed “animal studies, clinical studies, and population-based studies of children and pregnant women for evidence of perchlorate’s impact predominately on the thyroid gland,” which has “a key role in neurological development during gestation and post-natal development.” Following their analysis, the authors summarized that “the results from most populations report no consistent associations,” however, “a few studies report thyroidal effects at environmentally relevant levels of perchlorate.” The authors then discussed several reasons for these “mixed results” and inadvertently dismissed the population-based studies in favor of high-dose clinical studies, concluding that “health effects are expected to only occur at doses substantially higher than environmental levels.”

The most recent examples of epidemiological studies reporting associations between perchlorate exposure and health outcomes in the newborn include a cohort study by Bridget Knight and colleagues from the University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK, that found a negative association between perchlorate levels in the urine of pregnant women and circulating levels of the free thyroxine (T4) hormone, suggesting a possibility of “an adverse impact on neurocognitive development of the fetus.” Yasemin Ucal and colleagues from the Department of Medical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Istanbul, Turkey, reported that urinary perchlorate levels in lactating mothers were associated with increased levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in their babies. Further, a study by Rainbow Rubin and colleagues from the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, U.S., reported an association between urinary perchlorate levels in pregnant women and preterm births among male fetuses. The authors suggested that the observed “altered birth outcomes” could be followed by “long-term impacts,” requiring future research to understand these better. Pleus and Corey did not discuss the two latter studies. They also did not acknowledge the draft report released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2017, that concluded that perchlorate exposure of pregnant women can negatively affect the brain development in the fetus (FPF reported).

Apart from neurodevelopmental effects, exposure to perchlorate could contribute to other diseases as well. In 2017, an article published in the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Epidemiology reported on an analysis of 11,443 participants from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2001-2014, finding that “higher urinary perchlorate levels are associated with an increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus, independent of traditional risk factors.” Lei Zhang and colleagues from the Key Laboratory of Food Safety Risk Assessment, Ministry of Health (CFSA) and China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, Beijing, China, reported on a pair-matching case-control study that revealed an association between increased urinary levels of iodine and perchlorate and the risk of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC).

In the U.S., perchlorate is allowed to be used in food packaging and food processing equipment, what could have resulted in an increased perchlorate consumption by children (FPF reported). A study by Jenica McMullen and colleagues from the School of Medicine, New York University, New York, U.S., found that not only the newborns but also the “adolescent boys and girls represent vulnerable subpopulations to the thyroid-blocking effects.” In adults, a cross-sectional analysis performed by Jennifer Przybyla and colleagues from the School of Biological and Population Health, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Corvallis, U.S., revealed a disruption of thyroid hormone levels by exposure to mixtures containing phenols, phthalates, and perchlorate. The non-governmental organization Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has repeatedly asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ban the use of perchlorate in food packaging (FPF reported).

In an article published on January 22, 2018, Katharina Vejdovszky and colleagues from the Department of Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria, reported on the dietary perchlorate exposure of the Austrian populations. The scientists used “analytical data of perchlorate occurrence in food products from the Austrian market” to calculate dietary exposure “for the three age classes of adults, children and infants,” followed by “a detailed risk assessment.” Compared to the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.3 µg/kg body weight/day, confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2015 (FPF reported), scenarios of average food consumption “did not indicate elevated health risks by dietary perchlorate uptake” for any age group. However, all age classes showed an exceeded TDI in the scenario of high consumption, with 132%, 161% and 156% exceedance calculated for adults, children and infants, respectively. The authors explained that “the major cause for this exceedance is the comparatively high perchlorate contamination of spinach, but also other leaf vegetables, legumes and pineapples, leading to elevated exposure of high consumers.” They further stated that “the current provisional intra-Union trade reference level for perchlorate in spinach of 0.2 mg/kg, advocated by the European Commission, is not sufficient to protect high consumers against possible health risks.” Therefore, they called for the “lowering of the regulatory maximum perchlorate concentrations” in order “to reduce health risks to a tolerable level for all consumers.”

In February 2018, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has suggested that perchlorate levels in the European food chain need to be reduced (FPF reported). In the 11^th amendment to EU regulation No 10/2011 on plastic food contact materials, published in June 2018, the specific migration limit (SML) for perchloric acid and its salts, perchlorates, was lowered from 0.05 mg/kg to 0.002 mg/kg (FPF reported).

References

Pleus R.C. and Corey L.M. (2018). “Environmental exposure to perchlorate: A review of toxicology and human health.” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 358:102-109.

Knight, B.A., et al. (2018). “Effect of perchlorate and thiocyanate exposure on thyroid function of pregnant women from South-West England: a cohort study.” Thyroid Research 11:9.

Rubin, R., et a. (2017). “Maternal perchlorate exposure in pregnancy and altered birth outcomes.” Environmental Research 158:72-81.

Ucal, Y., et al. (2018). “Exposure to perchlorate in lactating women and its associations with newborn thyroid stimulating hormone.” Frontiers in Endocrinology (Lausanne) 9:348.

U.S. EPA (2017). “Draft Report: Proposed approaches to inform the derivation of a maximum contaminant level goal for perchlorate in drinking water (Volume I – Main report).” EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438

Vejdovszky, K., et al. (2018). “Risk assessment of dietary exposure to perchlorate for the Austrian population.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 35:623-631.

Abt, E., et al. (2018). “Update on dietary intake of perchlorate and iodine from U.S. food and drug administration’s total diet study: 2008-2012.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 28:21-30.

McMullen, J., et al. (2018). “Identifying subpopulations vulnerable to the thyroid-blocking effects of perchlorate and thiocyanate.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 102:2637-2645.

Przybyla, et al. (2018). “A cross sectional study of urinary phthalates, phenols and perchlorate on thyroid hormones in US adults using structural equation models (NHANES 2007-2008).” Environmental Research 163:26-35.

Liu, G., et al. (2017). “Exposure to perchlorate, nitrate and thiocyanate, and prevalence of diabetes mellitus.” International Journal of Epidemiology 46:1913-1923.

Zhang, L., et al. (2018). “A case-control study of urinary levels of iodine, perchlorate and thiocyanate and risk of papillary thyroid cancer.” Environment International 120:388-393.

In an article published on June 27, 2018, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research, Adela Jing Li and colleagues from the Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, U.S., report on a case-control study looking at possible associations of urinary levels of 23 different phenolic compounds, including “parabens, antimicrobials, bisphenols, benzophenones,” with type 2 diabetes. The study included 54 diabetic patients and 47 control subjects enrolled in Saudi Arabia. An association with increased risk for diabetes was found for several parabens and bisphenols and one benzophenone compound. The authors estimated the following “order of chemicals associated with diabetes”: 4-hydroxybenzophenone (4-OH-BP, CAS 1137-42-4) > bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7) > bisphenol F (BPF, CAS 620-92-8) > ethylparaben (EtP, CAS 120-47-8) > 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HB, a metabolite of parabens, CAS 99-96-7) > methylparaben (MeP, CAS 99-76-3) ≈ propylparaben (PrP, CAS 94-13-3). 

Yishuang Duan and colleagues from the Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Pollution Processes and Environmental Criteria, College of Environmental Science and Engineering studied the association between urinary concentrations of eight different bisphenols and type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population. The results of their case-control study, involving 251 diabetic subjects and 251 controls, were published on September 24, 2018, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution. Both bisphenol S (BPS, CAS 80-09-1) and bisphenol AF (BPAF, CAS 1478-61-1) were found to be positively associated with diabetes, while a “nonlinear association” was observed for BPA. Regarding the latter, the scientists observed “significant positive associations” in the lower concentrations range for both BPA levels and the total bisphenol concentrations. Notwithstanding the significance of their findings, the  authors caution that “this case-control study . . . cannot provide evidence of causality, which need[s] to be investigated in prospective studies.” 

In a review published on October 12, 2017, in the peer-reviewed journal Current Opinion in Toxicology, Marcelo Bonini and Robert Sargis from the University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, U.S., discussed “some of the latest concepts and mechanisms by which environmental exposures may contribute to rising rates [of diabetes].” They emphasize that “understanding the contribution of toxicants to diabetes risk as well as improved understanding of their mechanisms of action offer unique opportunities to modulate diabetes risk via targeted therapeutics or public policy interventions to reduce and remediate exposures.” 

References 

Jing Li, A., et al. (2018). “Urinary concentrations of environmental phenols and their association with type 2 diabetes in a population in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.” Environmental Research 166:544-552. 

Duan, Y., et al. (2018). “Association of urinary concentrations of bisphenols with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A case-control study.” Environmental Pollution (published September 24, 2018). 

Bonini, M.G., and Sargis, R.M. (2018). “Environmental toxicant exposures and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Two interrelated public health problems on the rise.” Current Opinion in Toxicology 7:52-59.

In an article published on October 23, 2018, by Cosmos Magazine, reporter Nick Carne informed about a study looking at microplastics in human stool, led by Philipp Schwabl from the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. The preliminary results from this study will be presented on October 24, 2018, at the United European Gastroenterology Week.

So far, the scientists found microplastics “in every stool sample tested from participants in eight countries, with nine different types of plastic identified.” On average, feces contained 20 microplastic particles per ten gram, with polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polymers detected most often. The monitored countries included “Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the UK and Austria.”

Schwabl emphasized that “the highest plastic concentrations in animal studies have been found in the gut” and “the smallest microplastic particles are capable of entering the blood stream.” Therefore, “the first evidence for microplastics inside humans” should be followed by “further research to understand what this means for human health,” and “especially [for] patients with gastrointestinal diseases.”

Read more

Nick Carne (October 23, 2018). “Microplastics found in human stools.” Cosmos

Schwabl, P., et al. (October 24, 2018). “OP317 – Assessment of microplastic concentrations in human stool – Preliminary results of a prospective study.” United European Gastroenterology (UEG week)

EurekAlert (October 23, 2018). “Microplastics discovered in human stools across the globe in ‘first study of its kind.’”

Lorraine Chow (October 23, 2018). “Microplastics detected in human stool samples for first time.“

On November 12, 2018, at 04:00 pm CET (Central European Time), the Food Packaging Forum (FPF) will hold a public webinar on the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) perspectives on food additives.

In July 2018, the AAP published a policy statement and a technical report on the effects of direct and indirect food additives on child health in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics (FPF reported). Dr. Leonardo Trasande of the New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, U.S., and lead author of the articles, will review the two documents, address implications for global policies, and discuss simple steps to limit exposure to chemicals of greatest concern, with a focus on food contact articles. After Dr. Trasande’s talk, there will be time for questions.

For more information and registration, please visit the event website.

Read more

Trasande, L., et al. (2018). “Food additives and child health. Policy statement.” Pediatrics (published online July 23, 2018).

Trasande, L., et al. (2018). “Food additives and child health. Technical report.” Pediatrics (published online July 23, 2018).

On November 7, 2018, the European Commission (EC) adopted a communication on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) “confirming its commitment to protecting citizens and the environment from hazardous chemicals.” The EU’s strategic approach to EDCs as outlined in the communication aims to 1) minimize overall exposure to EDCs, 2) accelerate research to improve decision-making, and 3) promote an active dialogue between all stakeholders for collaborative work. Further, the EC will launch a “fitness check” of the current legislation applicable to EDCs to assess “whether it delivers on the objectives of protecting human health and the environment.” A public consultation will be included in the fitness check.

The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) commented on the EC’s communication claiming that “it lacks specific measures and timelines on how people and the environment can be better protected from these harmful chemicals.” NGO CHEM Trust added: “In particular the proposal to launch a Fitness Check to assess whether EU relevant legislation on endocrine disrupters delivers on the protection goals will lead to further delays instead of solving known inadequacies in the risk management of EDCs in the EU.” All three NGOs are part of the EDC-Free Europe campaign that published a position paper in May 2018 containing eight specific demands for an EU EDC strategy (FPF reported).

Read more

EC (November 7, 2018). “Endocrine disruptors: A strategy for the future that protects EU citizens and the environment.”

EC (November 7, 2018). “Commission Communication on endocrine disruptors: Questions and answers.”

Clelia Oziel (November 7, 2018). “EU outlines new strategy on EDCs.” Chemical Watch

HEAL (November 7, 2018). “New Communication on endocrine disruptors lacks concrete measures to reduce harmful exposures.”

CIEL (November 7, 2018). “New Communication on endocrine disruptors lacks concrete measures to reduce harmful exposures.”

Ninja Reineke (November 7, 2018). “New EU Communication on endocrine disrupters: missing the action.” CHEM Trust

EDC-Free Europe (November 7, 2018). “EDC-Free Europe reacts to new Communication on endocrine disruptors.”

Reference

EC (November 7, 2018). “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a comprehensive European Union framework on endocrine disruptors.” (pdf)

On November 8, 2018, a documentary on chemicals in food packaging and related health effects, entitled “Unpacked,” was released. Directors Thomas Winter and Jack Nitz particularly focused on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and their effects on the human endocrine system. They interviewed several experts on the topic to explain the issue. Further, they explored potential solutions to reduce EDC exposure from food packaging such as zero waste shopping, green chemistry materials, and making informed consumer decisions. The video is now available online and can be watched for free.

Read more

Vimeo (2018). “Unpacked.”

On November 26, 2018, at 03:00 pm CET (Central European Time), the Food Packaging Forum (FPF) will hold a public webinar on prioritization of potentially genotoxic substances in printed paper and board food contact materials (FCMs) using non-animal methods.

Substances used in printed paper and board FCMs are currently not subject to specific harmonized EU legislation. However, these compounds may migrate into food or drinks and cause adverse human health effects, including cancer. In this webinar, a prioritization strategy for their in-depth safety assessment, established by combining knowledge from in vitro, in silico and existing experimental studies, is presented.

Guest speaker Melissa Van Bossuyt is a toxicologist at Sciensano, the new Belgian federal scientific institute conducting research on public and animal health as well as on environmental issues – under the framework of the One Health principle. After her talk, there will be time for questions.

For more information and registration, please visit the event website.

On December 3, 2018, the Collaborative on Health and the Environment will host a webinar on plastic food packaging. Ksenia Groh of the Food Packaging Forum (FPF) will present FPF’s research on chemicals in plastics packaging (FPF reported) and on the safety aspects of plastics recycling for food contact (FPF reported). Further, Rachel Shaffer and Leonardo Trasande from the New York School of Medicine, U.S., will discuss the technical report and policy statement on food additives and child health, released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in July 2018 (FPF reported). Registration is now open.

The upcoming webinar is a second event in CHE’s new webinar series focused on the effects of plastics on health. The first webinar, held in October 2018, focused on plastic production. The two upcoming webinars in January and February 2019 will focus on microplastics and bio-based plastics, respectively.

Read more

CHE (2018). “Plastic food packaging: State of the science on chemical constituents and health hazards.” Webinar scheduled for December 3, 2018.

CHE (2018). “Plastic production’s threats to health: Global trends, chemical footprints of common plastics, and the PVC industry’s wake of pollution.” Webinar held on October 30, 2018.

CHE (2018). “The effects of plastics on health.” Webinar series.

References

Groh, K., et al. (2018). “Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards.” Science of the Total Environment 651:3253-3268.

Geueke, B., et al. (2018). “Food packaging in the circular economy: Overview of Chemical safety aspects for commonly used materials.” Journal of Cleaner Production 193:491-505.

Trasande, L., et al. (2018). “Food additives and child health. Policy statement.” Pediatrics 142(2):e20181408.

Trasande, L., et al. (2018). “Food additives and child health. Technical report.” Pediatrics 142(2):e20181410.

An article published on November 6, 2018, in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Endocrine Disorders, reported on a meta-analysis of studies evaluating the possible effects of exposure to bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7) on the risk of type 2 diabetes (FPF reported). Semi Hwang and colleagues from the Institute for Health Promotion, Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, reviewed the literature published between 1980 and 2018 and found a total of 16 studies that could be included into their meta-analysis. Among these studies, “thirteen [were] cross-sectional, two case-control and one prospective.” BPA concentrations were measured either in the urine (14 studies) or in plasma (two studies), and all studies together covered “a total of 41,320 subjects.” 

The meta-analysis revealed that in both urine- and serum-focused studies, BPA concentrations showed “positive associations” with type 2 diabetes risk.  The odds ratios were calculated at 1.28 or 1.20 for studies that measured BPA concentrations in blood or urine, respectively. 

As limitations of their analysis, the authors highlighted (1) the need for “inclusion of additional studies . . . to validate and confirm the results,” (2) the need to better understand what would be the most “appropriate surrogate for BPA exposure,” (3) the need “to clarify . . . complex dose-response relationship,” such as “inverted U-shape or non-linear relationships,” and (4) the need to apply special analysis methodology in order to better handle the “heterogeneity in inclusive studies.” 

Reference 

Hwang, S., et al. (2018). “Bisphenol A exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: a meta-analysis.” BMC Endocrine Disorders 18:81

In an article published on November 27, 2018, by regulatory news provider Chemical Watch, editor Kelly Franklin informed that the Canadian department for public health, Health Canada, launched a public consultation on the definition of the term ‘vulnerable populations’ in the context of chemicals management.

Health Canada proposed to adopt the following definition: “[A] group of individuals within the general Canadian population who, due to either greater susceptibility and/or greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals.” With the consultation, the department aims to better address and protect vulnerable populations within the country’s chemicals management. Comments can be submitted until January 21, 2019.

Future consultations will address “[e]ndocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and combined exposures to multiple chemicals,” Franklin reported.

Read more

Kelly Franklin (November 27, 2018). “Canada seeks input to ‘renew its approach’ to chemicals management.” Chemical Watch

On December 11, 2018, from 07:00 to 08:00 pm Central European Time (CET), the U.S. non-profit organizations Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and Toxic-Free Future will hold a webinar on a new report entitled “Take out toxics: PFAS chemicals in food packaging.” The report will be released on the same day and “discusses the results of testing food packaging and food contact materials from five of the nation’s largest grocery chains to see which were likely treated with PFAS chemicals.”

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are toxic and persistent chemicals that are “often used to treat paper food packaging products for water and grease resistance,” the two organizations explain. PFAS-containing materials “can contaminate the food they come into contact with and, after being discarded, can contaminate landfills and compost,” they further highlight.

The webinar will cover “the test results, alternatives to PFAS-treated materials and recommendations for retailers and regulators.” Registration is now open.

Read more

SCHF and Toxic-Free Future (2018). “New report on PFAS chemicals in food packaging.”

An article published on December 6, 2018, by Environmental Health News, presents an adopted version of a lecture that Thomas Zoeller, professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, U.S., gave in August 2018 at the “51^st Session of International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies: Science for Peace the World Over” in Erice, Italy.

Zoeller summarizes that “chemicals are manufactured for use in almost everything with which humans come into contact.” This results in widespread chemical exposures of the human population, and the reason that these exposures continue on a large scale is “profit and convenience,” Zoeller maintains, in a sense that production and use of chemicals is profitable to industry and convenient for consumers. However, “a hidden issue is that consumers most often are unaware of the chemicals to which they are being exposed.”

Zoeller emphasizes that “humans are born pre-polluted,” as every baby born has industrial chemicals in their bloodstream at birth as an evidence of in utero exposure. At the same time, “there is sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that chemical exposures are currently causing harm to the human population, and that their effects profoundly increase health care costs, decrease the quality of life for millions of people, reduce cognitive function and increase the expression of neurobehavioral disorders, and at least some of these effects can be passed from one generation to the next without further chemical exposures.” In dealing with this situation, Zoeller thinks that “it is important to ask not only why and how the human population has become exposed to hundreds of chemicals, but also why we allow it to continue” (the emphasis is the author’s).

Among the most important reasons for the status quo, Zoeller highlights the fact that “governments employ an antiquated discipline that informs us about toxicity and safety,” based on the outdated concept that only the “dose makes the poison,” despite the evidence of endocrine disruption occurring at low levels of chemical exposures usually considered ‘safe’ (FPF reported). Further, chemical safety is usually evaluated by certain standard tests. However, “there is good reason to question both the sensitivity of these measurements to identify hazards, and the degree to which they reflect hazards to the human population,” Zoeller criticizes. There are also a number of other challenges associated with the risk assessment paradigm currently applied.

Yet another reason “that the status quo of human chemical exposures continues is that financial self-interest motivates campaigns to confuse both the public and regulatory agencies with the goal of limiting or avoiding regulations,” Zoeller observes. He explains that the employed strategies “range from outright fraud and corruption to the selective manipulation of information to make a chemical or product appear safe.” Furthermore, “regulatory decisions are made by government agencies in secret collaboration with the industries that manufacture the chemical,” because “the data provided to regulatory agencies are proprietary.” What is more, the responsible people involved in regulatory decision-making are often “not experts in human health and therefore must necessarily make decisions based on traditional ways of interpreting traditional data.”

Zoeller also questions the “general acceptance that petrochemical-based products are required for modern life and that environmental regulations negatively impact market competitiveness.” He maintains that the human society should be capable of manufacturing “safer products using bio-based feedstocks and green chemistry.” Furthermore, the potential negative impact of environmental regulations on market competitiveness “has been refuted over and over again by a variety of economic studies.” Therefore, the governments that “overtly move to restrict or eliminate environmental regulations . . . are acting neither to protect public . . . not to protect the market.” Instead, they “protect the market share of industries currently dominating the market.” Thus, “the chemical industry and regulatory system has evolved to maintain itself rather than to protect public health,” Zoeller concludes.

The consequences of this status quo include the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases, associated with inflated costs and decreased quality of life. There is also “a cultural cost to the status quo of chemical regulations,” Zoeller warns, because “a large number of chemicals are known to affect brain development and cognitive function.” Furthermore, there is “increasing evidence that the health effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals can be passed from one generation to the next.”

To change the status quo, “we must first admit that this status quo is not sustainable and is responsible for contributing significantly to human health and global economic challenges.” Only upon that admission will there be “the political will to begin to change this status,” Zoeller emphasizes. He concludes by saying that “reducing chemical exposure should be considered ‘low hanging fruit.’”

Read more

Thomas Zoeller (December 6, 2018). “The consequences of status quo chemical policy are becoming increasingly clear.” Environmental Health News

On December 11, 2018, the non-profit organizations Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF) and Toxic-Free Future released a new report entitled “Take out toxics: PFAS chemicals in food packaging” (FPF reported).

The study examined the fluorine content of 78 samples of food packaging, including “paper takeout containers, bakery or deli papers, microwavable trays, and baking supplies like muffin cups.” The samples were collected from five large U.S. grocery stores (Ahold Delhaize, Albertsons, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods Market). The results indicate that 13% of all samples were likely treated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). More specifically, 63% of takeout containers and 11% of bakery and deli papers tested were likely treated with PFASs. None of the tested cook-at-home food trays, baking supplies, and microwavable trays were found to likely contain PFASs. Further, the study noted that many “retailers use or sell packaging that is free of PFAS treatment, indicating that PFAS-free alternatives are widely available and competitively priced.”

In light of their results, the organizations call on grocery chains and food retailers to adopt comprehensive chemicals policies to remove hazardous chemicals, such as PFASs and other endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC), from food contact materials (FCMs). They also urge state and local governments to ban PFASs in food packaging and promote safer alternatives, similar to actions taken by the U.S. states Washington and New York as well as the city San Francisco.

Read more

SCHF (December 11, 2018). “New study finds non-stick PFAS chemicals in takeout packaging at top grocery stores.”

Reference

SCHF and Toxic-Free Future (December 11, 2018). “Take out toxics: PFAS chemicals in food packaging.” (pdf)

In an article published on December 12, 2018, by the non-profit organization CHEM Trust, head of advocacy Anna Watson outlined the various uses of phthalates in “everyday consumer products” (e.g., food packaging) and summarized the many adverse health effects associated with exposure to these chemicals.

In particular, Watson highlighted “the lack of EU action on phthalates in food contact materials [(FCMs)].” Michael Warhurst, executive director of CHEM Trust, stated: “Research is demonstrating yet again how we need stronger, faster and more comprehensive regulation of problematic groups of chemicals such as phthalates.” The article further mentioned a research project in collaboration with the Food Packaging Forum and other organizations aimed at identifying and prioritizing hazardous chemical in plastic packaging (FPF reported).

Read more

Anna Watson (December 12, 2018). “Phthalates: Research finds more worrying links with human health problems.” CHEM Trust

An article published on January 3, 2019 by CBS news gave a preview of a new book written by Leonardo Trasande from the New York School of Medicine, U.S., called “Sicker, Fatter, Poorer: The urgent threat of hormone-disrupting chemicals to our health and future . . . and what we can do about it.” The printed version is scheduled for release on January 8, 2019.

The book “highlights the potentially harmful effects of thousands of chemicals in our food, environment and household and personal care products that could be linked to conditions like obesity, diabetes, brain disorders and fertility problems.” It also discusses “the ultimate economic cost of diseases like obesity and diabetes” (FPF reported). Further, Trasande recommends several “safe and simple steps we can take to limit those exposures” (FPF reported).

The industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a critical statement on January 3, 2018 commenting that “many substances have been shown to interact with the endocrine system without causing an adverse health effect.” Therefore, “to stay below ranges of exposure determined to be safe, consumers should read product labels closely and follow directions carefully.”

Read more

CBS News (January 3, 2019). “’Sicker, Fatter, Poorer’: The cost of hormone-disrupting chemicals.”

ACC (January 3, 2019). “ACC comments on forthcoming book on hormone disrupting chemicals and their alleged impacts on human health.”

Chemical Watch (January 8, 2019). “America Chemistry Council challenges research in new book on EDCs.”

Endocrine News (January 2019). “Q&A: Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP.”

Chemical Watch (January 17, 2019). “Experts rally round EDC book aimed at general public.”

Reference

Leonardo Trasande (2019). “Sicker, Fatter, Poorer: The urgent threat of hormone-disrupting chemicals to our health and future . . . and what we can do about it.” Amazon

Several recent epidemiological studies examined associations between exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and various human health outcomes.

Metabolic diseases

Richard Christian Jensen and colleagues from the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, investigated “association between five serum PFASs and glucose-related outcomes in pregnant Danish women based on their risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).” They found that, in women with high GDM risk, the concentration of perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS, CAS 355-46-4) “was associated with higher fasting glucose, insulin and insulin resistance,” while the concentration of perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA, CAS 375-95-1) “was associated with increased fasting insulin and beta-cell function.” However, “[i]n women with low GDM risk, no associations were found between PFAS concentrations and glucose-related outcomes.” The authors concluded that “PFHxS and PFNA concentrations were associated with impaired glycemic status in metabolically vulnerable pregnant women and might further enhance the risk of developing GDM.”

Krista Christensen and colleagues from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, U.S., evaluated data on the levels of 12 different PFASs and “metabolic syndrome components,” such as “increased waist circumference and elevated glucose,” collected within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).  They found that “PFNA was associated with increased risk of metabolic syndrome” and “the highest levels of PFHxS were associated with elevated triglycerides.”

In contrast to the studies above, a “prospective nested case-control study” of PFAS and type II diabetes risk delivered “overall conflicting results” and revealed “mostly non-significant” inverse associations between exposure to individual PFASs and prospective diabetes risk. In this study, Carolina Donat-Vargas and colleagues from the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Instituet, Stockholm, Sweden, measured plasma levels of several PFAS in a Swedish cohort at the study onset and at the 10-year follow-up examination. They then compared the values between participants with or without diabetes.

Taylor Etzel and colleagues from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., also used NHANES data to examine associations between PFAS and vitamin D levels. They found that “some PFAS may be associated with altered vitamin D levels in the U.S. population, and association may vary by chemical, age, and race/ethnicity.” They called for “prospective epidemiological studies” in order to confirm these findings and “determine their implications for vitamin D-associated health outcomes in children and adults.”

Cardiovascular diseases

Also based on NHANES data, Mengmeng Huang and colleagues from the Fuli Institute of Food Science, Zhejiang University, China, reported several positive associations of individual PFASs with the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), including congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, and angina pectoris. The observed associations were “independent of traditional CVD risk factors.”

Rong Huang and colleagues from the Ministry of Education-Shanghai Key Laboratory of Children’s Environmental Health, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, examined the association between “PFAS exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) in humans.” They found an association with preeclampsia for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS, CAS 375-73-5), perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUA, CAS 2058-94-8), and PFHxS.

Fetal and child development

Hexing Wang and colleagues from the School of Public Health/Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, found that the levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, CAS 335-67-1) in cord serum were “negatively related to head circumference at birth” and provided evidence that “estrogens might mediate the association between exposure to PFASs and fetal growth.” Irina Gyllenhammar and colleagues from the National Food Agency, Uppsala, Sweden, reported both positive and negative associations with fetal and child growth for several PFASs, which further differed depending on the child age at follow-up. Similarly, variable “associations of PFAS concentrations in umbilical cord blood with gestational and postnatal growth” in Chinese infants were observed by Wencheng Cao and colleagues from the Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wuhan, China.

Andreas Ernst and colleagues from the Department of Public Health, Section for Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Denmark, looked at the associations between prenatal PFAS exposure and pubertal development “in boys and girls from the Danish National Birth Cohort.” PFAS levels were measured in “maternal plasma from early gestation,” and data on puberty-related outcomes were collected in children “biannually from the age of 11 y until full maturation.” The researchers found that prenatal exposure to most PFAS was “associated with lower mean age at puberty marker onset” in both genders, however, for two PFASs “exposure was associated with higher mean age at onset of puberty in boys.” There were also several “nonmonotonic associations” observed for some combination of PFASs and puberty indicators. The authors concluded that their “study suggests sex-specific associations of altered pubertal development with prenatal exposure to PFAS.” These findings are “novel” and “replication is needed.”

Maria Averina and colleagues from the Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway, investigated the associations between PFAS exposure and “asthma and other allergies . . . in adolescents from the Arctic region of Norway.” They found positive associations with asthma and “self-reported nickel allergy,” and no associations with “allergic rhinitis, self-reported pollen allergy, food allergy and atopic eczema.”

References

Jensen, R.C., et al. (2018). “Perfluoroalkyl substances and glycemic status in pregnant Danish women: The Odense Child Cohort.” Environment International 116: 101-107.

Christensen, K., et al. (2019). “Perfluoroalkyl substances and metabolic syndrome.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 222: 147-153.

Donat-Vargas, C., et al. (2019). “Perfluoroalkyl substances and risk of type II diabetes: A prospective nested case-control study.” Environment International 123: 390-398.

Etzel, T.M., et al. (2018). “Association of serum perfluoroalkyl substance and vitamin D biomarker concentrations in NHANES, 2003-2010.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (published November 28, 2018).

Huang, M., et al. (2018). “Serum polyfluoroalkyl chemicals are associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases in national US population.” Environment International 119: 37-46.

Huang, R., et al. (2019). “Prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances and the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.” Environmental Health 18:5.

Wang, H., et al. (2019). “PFOS, PFOA, estrogen homeostasis, and birth size in Chinese infants.” Chemosphere 221: 349-355.

Gyllenhammar, I. (2018). “Perfluoroalkyl acid levels in first-time mothers in relation to offspring weight gain and growth.” Environment International 111: 191-199.

Cao, W., et al. (2018). “Perfluoroalkyl substances in umbilical cord serum and gestational and postnatal growth in a Chinese birth cohort.” Environment International 116: 197-205.

Ernst, A., et al. (2019). “Exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances during fetal life and pubertal development in boys and girls from the Danish National Birth Cohort.” Environmental Health Perspectives 127: e017004

Averina, M., et al. (2019). “Serum perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and risk of asthma and various allergies in adolescents. The Tromso study Fit Futures in Northern Norway.” Environmental Research 169: 114-121.

A review article published on January 7, 2019 in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International explores “the dominant patterns of exposure pathways and associated health risks of chemicals used in consumer products.” Dingsheng Li and Sangwon Suh from the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California Santa Barbara, U.S., searched the peer-reviewed literature and identified “342 [relevant] articles covering 202 unique chemicals,” from which they “distilled the information on the functional uses, product applications, exposure routes, exposure pathways, toxicity endpoints and their combinations.”

The chemicals and chemical groups most frequently discussed in the literature were bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7), phthalates, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. The most frequently reported combinations of functional use and product applications were “plasticizers, polymers/monomers, and flame retardants used in food contact products, personal care products, cosmetics, furniture, flooring, and electronics.” The authors also compared the publication numbers to the timeframe of major societal events and “observed a strong tendency that the number of publications on a chemical surges following major regulatory changes or exposure incidents associated with the chemical.”

The authors concluded that “the list of chemicals targeted by funded research tends to be biased toward the ones with known health risks.” Further, the growth of the peer-reviewed literature on health effects of chemicals in consumer products could “by no means match the speed of increasing volume and diversity of the chemicals produced and used in consumer products.” For example, in a 2018 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “suspect screening analysis of 100 consumer products tentatively identified 1602 chemicals, 1404 of which were not found in [a] public database of known consumer product chemicals.” Li and Suh commented that “[t]his growing gap between increasing reliance on chemicals in consumer products and our knowledge on their human health risks raises a potential public health concern, given the pervasive nature of today’s mass production and consumption practice.”

The research published in peer-reviewed literature also lacks predictive power, since “peer-reviewed journal publications largely failed to serve as an early warning or a preventive mechanism.” The authors summarized that “scientific literature tends to appear only after the outbreak of major exposure incidents, or they tend to be concentrated in the chemicals or chemical groups of which human health risks have been previously reported.”

In light of their review’s findings, the authors called for “creating the framework conditions that encourage more exploratory and speculative risk assessments and their publications in peer-reviewed journal space in the absence of known human health risks.” Such initiatives should be supported by “the developments in predictive toxicity and risk assessment techniques for screening-level assessment, as well as the use of systematic prioritization for high-risk exposure pathways and chemicals in consumer products.”

References

Li, D., and Suh, S. (2019). “Health risks of chemicals in consumer products: A review.” Environment International 12: 580-587.

Phillips, K. A., et al. (2018). “Suspect screening analysis of chemicals in consumer products.” Environmental Science & Technology 52: 3125-3135.

Ring, C., et al. (2019). “Consensus modeling of median chemical intake for the U.S. population based on predictions of exposure pathways.” Environmental Science & Technology 53: 719-732.

Tao, et al. (2018). “OrganoRelease – A framework for modeling the release of organic chemicals from the use and post-use of consumer products.” Environmental Pollution 234: 751-761.