Consumers generally assume that plastic wraps, waxed cartons, and bottles are inert barriers, but evidence indicates that many food-contact materials leach chemicals into their contents. While bisphenol A (BPA) has long been a focal point due to its status as a potent endocrine disrupter—leading to bans in the European Union in 2025 and restrictions in U.S. baby products—replacing one risky chemical with another is not a guaranteed solution.
Helene Weisinger, a chemist at the Swiss nonprofit Food Packaging Forum, describes the current regulatory landscape as “chemical whack-a-mole.” In a recent paper published in Environmental Science and Technology, Weisinger and her colleagues propose a system where chemically similar substances are grouped together for simultaneous regulation or banning, rather than addressed individually.
The scale of the problem is significant. Approximately 15,000 chemicals are used in food-contact materials, yet only 1,222 have known major health risks. The remaining chemicals have little to no exhaustive toxicity data. Olwenn Martin, an associate professor at University College London, noted that out of 350,000 chemicals on global markets, information on toxicity is scarce for many, a fact that may surprise the general public.
To address this, the research team categorized food-contact chemicals into structurally related groups. They identified 38 groups containing multiple compounds with clear health risks, alongside numerous members whose effects remain unknown. The researchers argue that even without additional toxicological studies, this grouping approach could streamline regulation and prevent the dangerous cycle of substituting one harmful chemical for another equally risky alternative.
Current testing rates are insufficient to keep pace with the volume of chemicals in use. “The backlog is such that it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to test all of these chemicals at current rates,” said Olwenn Martin, suggesting that grouping similar chemicals is a necessary pragmatic approach for regulatory bodies.
Regulatory interventions have proven effective when implemented correctly. Martin Wagner, a biologist at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, pointed out that stricter European rules against BPA and phthalates have led to decreased exposure levels in European populations. However, he also observed that exposure to alternative chemicals is rising, indicating that broad bans on chemical groups could curb this substitution trend.
Despite the potential for grouped regulation, challenges remain. Plastics manufacturing involves complex chemical steps that generate contaminants known as non-intentionally added substances. Wagner highlighted that these materials are difficult to fully characterize, meaning many unknown compounds are likely leaching into food and water with minimal oversight, leaving consumers exposed to complex mixtures with poorly understood health impacts.
Thank goodness the EU is banning BPA now. Hopefully other countries follow suit and we see real changes in packaging safety standards soon.
Interesting read. I wonder if this leads to stricter regulations or just more loopholes for manufacturers to exploit? History suggests the latter unfortunately.
Hoping policymakers actually adopt this grouping strategy soon. Current testing rates are absurdly slow for the scale of the problem.
The manufacturing contaminants like non-intentionally added substances seem even more dangerous than the intentional additives. We’re being exposed to complex mixtures with zero oversight.
Does this mean the BPA-free products I buy are just swapping one unknown risk for another? Someone needs to explain this clearly.
Grouping similar chemicals makes total sense. Testing every single variant individually will never keep up with industry innovation.
I had no idea only 1,222 out of 15,000 chemicals were properly tested. This ‘chemical whack-a-mole’ approach is terrifyingly inefficient.