Food Contact Chemicals Used in Production and Packaging Are Finding Their Way Into Humans
This article first appeared in the October 2024 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
Researchers working with the Food Packaging Forum discovered that of the roughly 14,000 known chemicals that are used in food manufacturing and packaging, approximately 25% or 3,601 of these food contact chemicals (FCCs) have been found in the human body. The chemicals include bisphenol, PFAS, phthalates, metals, volatile organic compounds, and many others that have been linked to endocrine system disruption, diabetes, obesity, neurodevelopment disorders, cancer and other diseases.
The study, Evidence for Widespread Human Exposure to Food Contact Chemicals, published in September 2024 in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, comprehensively searched biological data collections for detections of FCCs in humans, such as from samples of blood, urine, skin, and breast milk. The data is now assembled and available in a public listing with an interactive search tool.
“Our research helps to establish the link between food contact chemicals and human exposure, highlights chemicals that are overlooked in biomonitoring studies and supports research into safer food contact materials,” lead author Birgit Geueke, Ph.D., and Senior Scientific Officer at the Food Packaging Forum, said in a news release.
When the research team reviewed scientific literature to learn what is known about FCCs detected in humans, they concluded there is a broad lack of knowledge of the effect of these chemicals on human health, and the potential hazards of many of these chemicals have not yet been sufficiently investigated. For other chemicals that migrate from packaging into the food, such as synthetic antioxidants and oligomers (a type of non-intentionally added substance that may be present in plastic food contact materials), the authors pointed out that little is known about their presence in and impact on humans.
“Many of these FCCs have hazard properties of concern, and still others have never been tested for toxicity,” the researchers wrote. “Humans are known to be exposed to FCCs via foods, but the full extent of human exposure to all FCCs is unknown.” It also is likely that the actual number of FCCs in humans is even higher because only a subset of FCCs was investigated in detail, noted the study’s authors.
Dr. Jane Muncke, co-author of the study, expressed concern over such widespread chemical exposure, stating, "This work highlights the fact that food contact materials are not fully safe, even though they may comply with regulations, because they transfer known hazardous chemicals into people. We would like this new evidence base to be used for improving the safety of food contact materials—both in terms of regulations but also in the development of safer alternatives."
The Great Chemical Migration
From shrink wrap and takeout containers to plastic bottles and coated paperboard packaging, scientists have known for years that chemicals can migrate out of food packaging into the food itself. We all know not to microwave food in plastic packaging, as high temperatures can cause the plastic to leach into the food. Foods high in fat or acidity also tend to absorb more chemicals from packaging, reported the Washington Post. Foods packed into smaller containers have increased risk of chemical crossover, too — Muncke shared with the Washington Post that on a recent flight she was given a tiny container of salad dressing. “They served the salad with a 15ml little plastic bottle with olive oil and vinegar that you could pour over. I thought, ‘Well, I’m not doing that,’” she said.
Muncke also shared with the Washington Post that while most of the chemicals leaching from food packaging come from plastics, “Probably the worst one is recycled paper and cardboard. And I know that’s a hard one to stomach.” Recycling paper, cardboard or plastic for food packaging leads to non-food grade inks mixed in next to food, she said, adding to the chemical exposure risks. However, in a positive regulatory move, FDA announced in February 2024 that paper and paperboard food packaging coated with grease-proofing PFAS chemicals would no longer be sold in the U.S.
In January 2024, Consumer Reports published an investigation into plasticizers used in food packaging to make plastic containers softer, more flexible and durable. Phthalate compounds — the ones most commonly used as a plasticizer — are so ubiquitous that it has been reported that 95% of all humans have detectable levels of phthalates in their urine. What Consumer Reports found in tests of nearly 100 foods was that bisphenol and phthalates are widespread in food products. “We found them in almost every food we tested, often at high levels. The levels did not depend on packaging type, and no one particular type of food — say, dairy products or prepared meals — was more likely than another to have them,” Consumer Reports said. From canned sliced fruit to pasta to yogurt containers, the investigation found high levels of phthalates in the packaging. Some organic products the consumer advocacy group tested also were not immune to high levels phthalates detected in product packaging.
In addition to packaging, foods are often subject to chemical exposure in the production, manufacturing and potentially in the transport process. According to Consumer Reports, while early efforts to limit food exposure to such chemicals focused on packaging, “…it’s now clear that phthalates in particular can also get in from the plastic in the tubing, conveyor belts and gloves used during food processing, and can even enter directly into meat and produce via contaminated water and soil.”
Leah Segedie, founder of consumer advocacy group Mamavation, has conducted PFAS investigations into a number of different consumer products, and also to provide consumers with guidance in searching for products free of such chemicals. In 2022, she released a report about PFAS contamination of pasta sauces, both organic and conventional. Out of the 55 different pasta sauces she tested in 2021, 17 were organic and four of those, or approximately 25%, had detectable levels of PFAS.
“I believe that PFAS contamination of organic products is also taking place during the manufacturing process and when products get transported,” Segedie told Max Goldberg, Editor of Organic Insider. “What is touching the food? Was a contaminated lubrication used on a machine? Was food stored in a vat that was fluorinated, as it was crossing the Pacific Ocean in an incredibly hot shipping container? Does the food contain contaminated spices? All of these and many other variables are the reason why the end-product should be tested, not just the ingredient,” she said.
Finding PFAS Free Alternatives
Responding to growing concern over “forever chemicals” in food and consumer packaged goods, a number of natural, organic and conscious CPG companies are offering alternatives for products that contain PFAS. The Environmental Working Group compiled a list, updated in January 2024, of companies that have declared their products have no added PFAS, in including food, fashion, beauty care and other consumer products categories. Online retailer Thrive Market this year announced in a blog on its website that, “Though more research is needed, PFAS are being studied as potential carcinogens. This month, Thrive Market added PFAS to its list of non-compliant chemicals and substances, meaning that you won’t find it in any products on our site.”
Businesses such as HeyBamboo, a toilet paper brand made from 100% bamboo, is committed to using absolutely no plastic in its packaging. “The wrap is made from bamboo, and so is the core of our toilet paper and paper towel products,” said company founder and CEO Joslyn Faust. “We like to say that we’re sustainable to the core,” she said. Another emerging brand, Generation for Change, is committed to making plastic-free health and personal care products, stating that it’s “a company made for the plastic-free generation.” In 2022, FoodTank reported on 19 food and beverage companies looking to move beyond plastic packaging
For natural and organic food brands, Charles Haverfield, CEO of U.S. Packaging and Wrapping, offered this counsel in 2023 in Sustainable Packaging News: “Selecting suitable materials for organic packaging demands a discerning approach. Choose options that minimize the presence of unwanted chemicals while upholding organic and sustainable principles. Materials like compostable plastics, plant-based fibers and paper offer a natural breakdown without leaving behind harmful residues. Glass and metal containers, which are highly recyclable and chemically inert, limit interactions with the packaged goods. Steer clear of some conventional plastics, as they can harbor hazardous additives like phthalates and bisphenol-A. Instead, explore alternatives like bio-based plastics or cellulose-based materials. It's important to note that while aluminum is recyclable, certain aluminum-coated packaging materials may contain additional coatings that clash with organic principles.”
A number of packaging suppliers are offering PFAS free options, such as Good Start Packaging, Delfort, CarePac and others, which offer compostable fiber and paper food packaging with no added PFAS. In January 2024, Organic Produce Network reported that a new third-party packaging standard, GreenScreen Certified — a collaboration between the Center for Environmental Health and Clean Production Action — will certify packaging products that are free from PFAS, as well as “thousands of other chemicals of high concern to human health and the environment.”
Learn More
Video Abstract: Evidence for Widespread Human Exposure to Food Contact Chemicals
Full Study: Evidence for Widespread Human Exposure to Food Contact Chemicals
Summary of Study: Evidence for Widespread Human Exposure to Food Contact Chemicals
Database on Food Contact Chemicals Monitored in Humans (FCChumon)
Food Engineering Magazine: Get the PFAS Out of Food Packaging Materials ASAP
Guide to PFAS Free Food Packaging
Mamavation Guide to Avoiding Products with Forever Chemicals
Environmental Working Group Guide to Companies Marketing Alternatives for Products that Contain PFAS
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media and strategic business development services to natural, organic, sustainable and hemp/CBD products businesses. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.
A Toxic Combination: Forever Chemicals Are Adding to the Health Risks of Pesticides
This article first appeared in the August 2024 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
Two recent studies, one conducted by Consumer Reports and published in May 2024, and another published in Environmental Health Perspectives in July 2024, suggest that exposure to toxic synthetic pesticides continues to be a serious issue and a growing threat to human, animal and environmental health.
Now, add forever chemicals into the mix, as environmental advocacy groups found that 66 active ingredients currently approved for use in pesticides qualify as PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.”
In addition, according to the study, “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment,” eight approved “inert” ingredients – added to pesticides to help chemicals disperse and stick to the plants, for example – also qualify as PFAS. The research was conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Environmental Working Group, and was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Most Comprehensive Pesticide Review Ever
According to the Consumer Reports study published in May, the advocacy group conducted “our most comprehensive review ever of pesticides in food,” looking at 59 common fruits and vegetables (fresh versions, and in some cases, also canned, dried and frozen fruits and vegetables) and analyzing seven years of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA annually tests a selection of conventional and organic produce grown in or imported to the U.S. for pesticide residues.
“Our new results continue to raise red flags,” said Catherine Roberts on behalf of Consumer Reports. “Pesticides posed significant risks in 20% of the foods we examined, including popular choices such as bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes, and strawberries. One food, green beans, had residues of a pesticide that hasn’t been allowed to be used on the vegetable in the U.S. for over a decade. And imported produce, especially some from Mexico, was particularly likely to carry risky levels of pesticide residues.”
Added Roberts, “When it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.” Science has strongly linked pesticide exposure to increased risks of cancer, diabetes, neurological and childhood development issues, and many other health problems.
PFAS: Compounding the Concern
Compounding the concern of pesticide pollution is the discovery that PFAS chemicals are being used in many of the toxic, synthetic pesticide formulations approved for use on farms across the U.S., raising questions about the long-term consequences of such pernicious substances enduring for decades in our soil and water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these chemicals “break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time.”
PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues and developmental delays in children, among other adverse health effects. To make matters worse, the researchers who published the Environmental Health Perspectives report found that a process called fluorination, which can create PFAS chemicals, is being used increasingly in the manufacture of pesticides to make them stick around for longer, Civil Eats reported.
“This is truly frightening news, because pesticides are some of the most widely dispersed pollutants in the world,” said Nathan Donley, Environmental Health Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity and one of the study’s authors. “Lacing pesticides with forever chemicals is likely burdening the next generation with more chronic diseases and impossible cleanup responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to get a grasp on this fast-emerging threat right away.”
“Toxic PFAS have no place in our food, water or homes, posing a serious threat to our health and environment,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., Deputy Director of Investigations and a Senior Scientist with the Environmental Working Group, a co-author of the study. “The increasing use of PFAS pesticides will lead to increasing levels of PFAS in the environment. PFAS not only endanger agricultural workers and communities but also jeopardize downstream water sources, where pesticide runoff can contaminate drinking supplies. From home gardens to pet care, the use of these pesticide products further illustrates why we must end all non-essential uses of these persistent forever chemicals,” Andrews added.
Choose Organic
Based on Consumer Reports’ research, the largest risks of dietary exposure to pesticide residues are caused by just a few pesticides concentrated in a handful of fruits and vegetables. Their findings also indicated that nearly all of the organically produced fruits and vegetables tested presented little to no risk.
To help educate consumers, Consumer Reports produced a printable guide showing the risk in produce from pesticides in both their conventional and organically produced counterparts, as well as whether they are grown domestically or imported.
Consumer Reports advised, “A proven way to reduce pesticide exposure is to eat organic fruits and vegetables, especially for the highest-risk foods. We had information about organically grown versions for 45 of the 59 foods in our analysis. Nearly all had low or very low pesticide risk, and only two domestically grown varieties—fresh spinach and potatoes—posed even a moderate risk. Organic foods’ low-risk ratings indicate that the USDA’s organic certification program, for the most part, is working,” Consumer Reports said.
“Less pesticide on food means less in our bodies: Multiple studies have shown that switching to an organic diet quickly reduces dietary exposure. Organic farming protects health in other ways, too, especially for farmworkers and rural residents, because pesticides are less likely to drift into the areas where they live or to contaminate drinking water,” Consumer Reports added.
However, of concern to advocates of organic agriculture, the report also showed that imported organic green beans had a very high pesticide risk – “the exact same rating as imported conventional green beans,” said Max Goldberg, Publisher of Organic Insider, in commenting on the study. Additionally, Consumer Reports findings indicated that U.S. grown organic spinach presented a “moderate” pesticide risk – “the exact same rating as both U.S.-grown and imported conventional Spinach,” Goldberg noted. U.S.-grown organic potatoes also presented a moderate risk, as did imported organic kale, according to USDA data analyzed by Consumer Reports.
While organic agriculture does allow for certain pesticides to be used, they are low-risk and derived from natural mineral or biological sources that have been approved by the USDA’s National Organic Program, said Goldberg, a renowned advocate for organic food and agriculture. Additionally, he noted, chemicals linked to human health and environmental issues, such as glyphosate or neonicotinoids, are prohibited in organic.
“The organic system is not fool-proof, and organic farmers may have persistent pesticides in their soil that have not degraded after the three-year transition period. Or, they may be the victim of pesticide drift from neighboring conventional farms. That being said, any fruit or vegetable that has a moderate, high or very high pesticide risk is a very serious red flag and should call for an immediate investigation. The fact that Consumer Reports looked at nearly 30,000 fruit and vegetable samples would invalidate an ‘isolated incident’ excuse,” Goldberg asserted.
“One of the primary reasons that we are paying extra to buy organic is specifically to avoid these chemicals. And yet, not only do imported organic green beans pose a very high pesticide risk, but they, along with U.S.-grown organic spinach, pose the exact same pesticide risk as their conventional counterparts,” he said.
“In the interim, retailers and brands must demand that their suppliers conduct third-party pesticide testing for all organic fruits and vegetables, or at a bare minimum, for all imported organic green beans and organic kale, and U.S.-grown organic spinach and organic potatoes. This will help identify who the bad actors are, so they can be removed from the system. We have no choice but to be unrelenting when it comes to pesticide contamination of organic fruits and vegetables,” said Goldberg.
Learn More
Download a printable version of Consumer Reports’ guide to pesticides in produce here.
Learn more about “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment” here.
Follow and subscribe to Organic Insider here.
Is Cell Cultured Meat Safe for Humans and the Environment?
This article first appeared in Presence Marketing’s September 2023 newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
Now that two California-based companies, Upside Foods and Good Meat, have received approval by the FDA and USDA to sell their lab-grown chicken products in restaurants before going full retail, the U.S. joins two other countries, Singapore and Israel, as the first to allow commercialization of cell cultured meat products.
What do natural channel industry members need to know about this new and controversial technology?
One thing seems certain: cell cultured meat, derived from and produced with biological materials sourced from animals, is not vegan. Few think it’s natural and many question whether it’s humane or safe for consumers to eat, at least in its present iteration. Despite being touted by such chefs as José Andrés, some experts question whether lab-grown chicken is even chicken. The ability to scale, along with potentially significant environmental impacts and production costs, are also top concerns for industry and consumers alike.
“We know that one company is using genetic engineering to create and immortalize chicken fibroblast and/or myoblast cell lines. They select for cells that they can bulk up in a suspension culture. However, growth factors used in the suspension culture may come from sera sourced from bovine, pig or other animal sources,” Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with Consumer Reports, told Presence News.
“If you’re buying chicken, you need to know if it was made with bovine or pork materials. How will consumers and those that follow special diets know if it’s not labeled?” Hansen asked. “Restaurants do not have to label.”
Countering cruelty free claims made by marketers of cell cultured meat, Hansen added, “The notion that this is cruelty free? They’re using fetal bovine serum derived from slaughtered cattle. They are, in fact, using a lot of material from animals. Let me be straight up clear: they are not cruelty free.”
In addition, Hansen raised concerns about the nutritional quality of the meat produced using cell culture technology. “Nutritionally, normal cholesterol levels in ground chicken average 45.4 mg/dL. However, cholesterol levels were reported five to 10 times higher in lab-grown, cell cultured chicken products,” he pointed out.
Safety, too, is a major point of concern for Hansen, who has been sharing his scientific expertise with Consumer Reports for more than 20 years. “People haven’t eaten these kinds of things before. We don’t know the downside and there have been no adequate health or safety studies conducted, to date.”
Josh Tetrick, CEO of Eat Just and Cofounder of Good Meat, feels differently about the safety of his cell cultured chicken product.
“So how do we do it?” Tetrick explained in an April 2022 interview with The Venture podcast. “We start with a cell. And we can get that cell from an egg, from a fresh piece of meat, or from a biopsy of an animal, so we don’t need billions of farmed animals anymore. Then we identify nutrients to feed the cell, since we need our own version of feed. And it’s not that different. It’s amino acids, vitamins, and minerals—stuff that enables our cell to grow. And then we scale up and manufacture it in a stainless-steel vessel called a bioreactor that looks like something you’d see in a microbrewery.
“And that’s how we make meat. That’s the process we used to make meat that’s served in Singapore today. That’s the process that we’ll be using as we build out larger facilities in North America, Singapore, and elsewhere. It’s cleaner, so there is little to no risk of salmonella, E. coli, fecal contamination, or other zoonotic diseases. Ultimately, we think it will be more efficient. The goal is to get below the cost of conventionally produced chicken,” Tetrick told The Venture.
“Because as proud as I am about launching with a handful of restaurants, that’s not the point. The point is to get to a world where the vast majority of meat consumed doesn’t require the need to slaughter an animal, cut down a tree, use antibiotics, or accelerate zoonotic disease. We’ve got to get to that world. And we’re only going to get to that world when we figure out a way to manufacture at scale. And we’re only going to get to scale when we figure out how to engineer this unprecedented bioreactor. And that’s why we’re putting so much energy into figuring it out,” Tetrick added.
“Yes, but what’s in the feed stock for the nutrient medium in which such products are grown?” natural products industry veteran and retail specialist Errol Schweizer asked.
“Billions of dollars of speculative investment have flowed into this space. The volumes of cell cultured meat needed to turn a profit for investors will necessitate millions of pounds or gallons of nutrient mix annually,” Schweizer said. “Will the feed stock be derived from cheap, plentiful but chemical-laden by-products of GMO agriculture, particularly soy and corn?
“And what are the environmental and health impacts of these feedstock raw materials? The industry will need to figure out how to dispose of the biological waste as a result of this process, as well. And because a lot of companies don’t want regulatory scrutiny beyond what already exists in the food industry, it’s going to take a lot of public pressure to get stronger labeling and federal oversight measures in place,” Schweizer told Presence News.
Max Goldberg, Founder of Organic Insider, questions the environmental benefits of cell cultured meat. “This is a very risky, unproven and highly processed food technology, and research published in May from the University of California at Davis shows that cultivated meat could emit up to 25 times more carbon dioxide equivalents than conventional beef. Yet, is anyone the least bit surprised? This is the classic playbook from the GMO industry – sell the public and investors on a great story but fail to deliver on the promises. Furthermore, no one has any idea of the possible unintended side effects of consuming this novel food product,” he told Presence News.
At the end of the day, will consumers accept such products? According to an international research group led by Ashkan Pakseresht from Novia University of Applied Sciences in Finland, consumer studies indicated at least seven factors affecting consumer acceptance of culture meat products: public awareness, risk-benefit perception, ethical and environmental concerns, emotions, personal factors, product properties, and availability of meat alternatives.
“Like any new food, the ultimate success of cultured meat depends on consumer acceptance,” the researchers said. “Environmental and ethical concerns stimulate a desire to preserve the environment and encourage consumers to accept more sustainable food production systems. However, it was surprising to learn that ethical and environmental concerns prompted consumers to be willing to pay a premium price for purchasing meat substitute (e.g., plant-based substitutes), but not necessarily cultured meat. The results indicated that the environmental advantages alone do not seem to be a strong motivation to compensate for perceived risks (or disgust impulse) of this novel technology,” Pakseresht told Food Navigator.
How will these products be presented to the public? According to Food Republic, a major hurdle has been determining how to label lab-grown meat in a way that would be transparent for consumers. “After a long process that has included debate and public feedback, the USDA has ruled that the lab-grown chicken will be labeled “cell-cultivated,” the magazine reported in June 2023.
“The USDA’s approval of our label marks a major step forward towards our goal of creating a more humane and sustainable food system,” said Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and Founder of Upside Foods, in a press release about the decision.
At the end of the day, will grocers, distributors and others dedicated to the healthy lifestyles market and the natural retail channel be willing to sell cell cultured meat? As Bill Weiland, Co-founder of Presence Marketing, puts it, “We prefer to sell plant-based meat, not meat made in a plant.”
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media, and strategic business development services to natural, organic, sustainable and hemp/CBD products businesses. Compass Natural serves in PR and programming for NoCo Hemp Expo and Southern Hemp Expo, and Hoffman serves as Editor of the weekly Let’s Talk Hemp Newsletter, published by We Are for Better Alternatives. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.