Search

Abstract Background Among the crises engulfing the world is the symbiotic rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and plastics. Together, this co-dependent duo generates substantial profits for agri-food and petrochemical industries at high costs for people and planet. Cheap, lightweight and highly functional, plastics have ideal properties that enable business models to create demand for low-cost, mass-produced and hyper-palatable UPFs among populations worldwide, hungry, or not. Evidence linking UPF consumption to deterioration in diet quality and higher risk of chronic diseases is well-established and growing rapidly. At the same time, the issue of plastic food contact chemicals (FCCs) is receiving increasing attention among the human health community, as is the generation and dispersion of micro- and nanoplastics. Main body In this commentary, we explore how the lifecycles and shared economic benefits of UPFs and plastics interact to co-produce a range of direct and indirect harms. We caution that the chemical dimension of these harms is underappreciated, with thousands of plastic FCCs known to migrate into foodstuffs. Some of these are hazardous and have been detected in humans and the broader environment, while many are yet to be adequately tested. We question whether policies on both UPF and plastic chemicals are fit for purpose when production and consumption of these products is adding to the chronic chemical exposures that plausibly contribute to the increasing global burden of non-communicable diseases. Conclusions In the context of ongoing negotiations for a legally binding global treaty to end plastics pollution, and rapidly growing concern about the burgeoning share of UPFs in diets worldwide, we ask: What steps are needed to call time on this toxic relationship?

Abstract Manufacturers of chemicals added to food are responsible for determining that the use of their products is safe. There are two major legal definitions of chemicals in food: (1) food additives which includes ingredients and chemicals indirectly entering food from packaging and processing equipment, and (2) generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances mostly used as ingredients. The law requires food additives to undergo approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they are sold, but it GRAS substances are exempted from pre-market approval. In 1997, FDA created a voluntary program for manufacturers to submit their chemical’s safety determination in the form of a GRAS notice to the agency. Manufacturers make GRAS determinations regardless of whether they voluntarily submit a notice to FDA for review. They rely on their own employees, the employee of a hired consulting firm or a panel of experts, known as GRAS panel, to review the safety information. Because this process determines whether a chemical is safe for use in food, conflicts of interest and biases need to be avoided or minimized to credibly ensure food is safe. Recently, FDA has published guidance for industry on best practices to convene GRAS panels to manage conflicts of interest and reduce biases that have plagued the process. Here, we perform a qualitative assessment of the compliance of GRAS panels with basic elements of FDA’s guidance. We assessed 403 GRAS notices filed by FDA between 2015 and 2020 and identified whether a GRAS panel was convened and by whom, its members, affiliations, and relationships between panelists and panel conveners. Then, we compared FDA’s recommendations against the information included in the notices voluntarily submitted by manufacturers. We found no evidence that GRAS panels have adhered to FDA’s guidance. Panels are populated from a very small pool of professionals; we found that seven panel members alone occupied almost half of all available panel positions and that they often serve together. Against guidance recommendations, ad-hoc panels have been substituted by panels with recurring members in hired consulting firms’ payroll. The widespread persistence of conflicts of interest, appearance of conflict and bias in GRAS determinations continue to put the health of Americans at risk and undermine confidence in the safety of food ingredients in the US market. FDA should require notice for all GRAS determinations including how the financial conflicts of interest of those who make these determinations are minimized.

Abstract The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a “safe” or “no-risk” level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection.

Abstract Background Hazard identification, risk assessment, regulatory, and policy activity are usually conducted on a chemical-by-chemical basis. Grouping chemicals into categories or classes is an underutilized approach that could make risk assessment and management of chemicals more efficient for regulators. Objective and methods While there are some available methods and regulatory frameworks that include the grouping of chemicals (e.g.,same molecular mechanism or similar chemical structure) there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of these different approaches nor a recommended course of action to better consider chemical classes in decision-making. This manuscript: 1) reviews current national and international approaches to grouping; 2) describes how groups could be defined based on the decision context (e.g., hazard/risk assessment, restrictions, prioritization, product development) and scientific considerations (e.g., intrinsic physical-chemical properties); 3) discusses advantages of developing a decision tree approach for grouping; 4) uses ortho-phthalates as a case study to identify and organize frameworks that could be used across agencies; and 5) discusses opportunities to advance the class concept within various regulatory decision-making scenarios. Results Structural similarity was the most common grouping approach for risk assessment among regulatory agencies (national and state level) and non-regulatory organizations, albeit with some variations in its definition. Toxicity to the same target organ or to the same biological function was also used in a few cases. The phthalates case study showed that a decision tree approach for grouping should include questions about uses regulated by other agencies to encourage more efficient, coherent, and protective chemical risk management. Discussion and conclusion Our evaluation of how classes of chemicals are defined and used identified commonalities and differences based on regulatory frameworks, risk assessments, and business strategies. We also identified that using a class-based approach could result in a more efficient process to reduce exposures to multiple hazardous chemicals and, ultimately, reduce health risks. We concluded that, in the absence of a prescribed method, a decision tree approach could facilitate the selection of chemicals belonging to a pre-defined class (e.g., chemicals with endocrine-disrupting activity; organohalogen flame retardants [OFR]) based on the decision-making context (e.g., regulatory risk management).

Abstract Background The association between environmental chemical exposures and chronic diseases is of increasing concern. Chemical risk assessment relies heavily on pre-market toxicity testing to identify safe levels of exposure, often known as reference doses (RfD), expected to be protective of human health. Although some RfDs have been reassessed in light of new hazard information, it is not a common practice. Continuous surveillance of animal and human data, both in terms of exposures and associated health outcomes, could provide valuable information to risk assessors and regulators. Using ortho-phthalates as case study, we asked whether RfDs deduced from male reproductive toxicity studies and set by traditional regulatory toxicology approaches sufficiently protect the population for other health outcomes. Methods We searched for epidemiological studies on benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Data were extracted from studies where any of the five chemicals or their metabolites were measured and showed a statistically significant association with a health outcome; 38 studies met the criteria. We estimated intake for each phthalate from urinary metabolite concentration and compared estimated intake ranges associated with health endpoints to each phthalate’s RfD. Result For DBP, DIBP, and BBP, the estimated intake ranges significantly associated with health endpoints were all below their individual RfDs. For DEHP, the intake range included associations at levels both below and above its RfD. For DCHP, no relevant studies could be identified. The significantly affected endpoints revealed by our analysis include metabolic, neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders, obesity, and changes in hormone levels. Most of these conditions are not routinely evaluated in animal testing employed in regulatory toxicology. Conclusion We conclude that for DBP, DIBP, BBP, and DEHP current RfDs estimated based on male reproductive toxicity may not be sufficiently protective of other health effects. Thus, a new approach is needed where post-market exposures, epidemiological and clinical data are systematically reviewed to ensure adequate health protection.

Abstract Food packaging is of high societal value because it conserves and protects food, makes food transportable and conveys information to consumers. It is also relevant for marketing, which is of economic significance. Other types of food contact articles, such as storage containers, processing equipment and filling lines, are also important for food production and food supply. Food contact articles are made up of one or multiple different food contact materials and consist of food contact chemicals. However, food contact chemicals transfer from all types of food contact materials and articles into food and, consequently, are taken up by humans. Here we highlight topics of concern based on scientific findings showing that food contact materials and articles are a relevant exposure pathway for known hazardous substances as well as for a plethora of toxicologically uncharacterized chemicals, both intentionally and non-intentionally added. We describe areas of certainty, like the fact that chemicals migrate from food contact articles into food, and uncertainty, for example unidentified chemicals migrating into food. Current safety assessment of food contact chemicals is ineffective at protecting human health. In addition, society is striving for waste reduction with a focus on food packaging. As a result, solutions are being developed toward reuse, recycling or alternative (non-plastic) materials. However, the critical aspect of chemical safety is often ignored. Developing solutions for improving the safety of food contact chemicals and for tackling the circular economy must include current scientific knowledge. This cannot be done in isolation but must include all relevant experts and stakeholders. Therefore, we provide an overview of areas of concern and related activities that will improve the safety of food contact articles and support a circular economy. Our aim is to initiate a broader discussion involving scientists with relevant expertise but not currently working on food contact materials, and decision makers and influencers addressing single-use food packaging due to environmental concerns. Ultimately, we aim to support science-based decision making in the interest of improving public health. Notably, reducing exposure to hazardous food contact chemicals contributes to the prevention of associated chronic diseases in the human population.