On this page:

• What are microplastics?
• How much do we ingest?
• Are microplastics bad for us?
• How can I avoid ingesting microplastics?

They come from a variety of sources, including synthetic fibres, microbeads from health and beauty products, and larger plastics that break down into ever-smaller pieces.   

Because of the extremely long life of plastics, this means that every piece of plastic ever manufactured could be producing these tiny particles. But research on the effect of microplastics in the environment is limited and we know very little about the impact they may be having on human health. 

What we do know is that microplastics are everywhere and unavoidable. We’re slowly finding out more about them, and how they enter the environment and find their way into our food supply.

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are defined as tiny pieces of plastic that are less than 5mm in length. 

There’s an even smaller type of microplastic – nanoplastic – which is the result of microplastics breaking down even further. Pieces of nanoplastic are less than 100 nanometers (nm). For scale, even a single human hair is huge by comparison, at about 75,000nm in diameter.

Because they’re so tiny, microplastics enter the environment very easily. A spokesperson for the World Health Organization (WHO) tells ÌÇÐÄVlog that the most common causes are surface run-off (which happens after heavy rain or a flood), treated and untreated wastewater effluent, industrial effluent, sewer overflows and atmospheric deposition (where the particles are deposited from the atmosphere to Earth’s surface).

Even using your washing machine contributes to the spread of microplastics: clothes made from synthetic fabrics such as polyester and nylon release tiny fibres into the water, which then end up in waterways. A recent UK study found that using a delicate wash cycle (which has a higher water to fabric ratio) in a front-loading washing machine can release an extra 800,000 polyester microfibres compared with a normal wash cycle.

These particles aren’t usually removed by wastewater treatment, so they end up in waterways. There, they can be digested by aquatic organisms and animals, such as fish, which mistake the particles for food. 

WHO reports that microplastics have been detected in sea salt, sugar, honey and beer, probably due to their presence  in water, food processing or atmospheric deposition. 

Food Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) reports that microplastics can also be found in indoor dust, and a Chinese study this year found that polyester fibres (including PET) were one of the key microplastic components of indoor and outdoor dust.

Primary vs secondary microplastics

There are two categories of microplastics, primary and secondary, although their impact is the same.

A WHO spokesperson tells us that “primary microplastics are specifically manufactured in the microplastic size range, for example, industrial abrasives used in sandblasting and microbeads used in cosmetics [and skin care products].

“Secondary microplastics are formed by the fragmentation and weathering of larger plastic items either from wear or from their release into the environment.”

This means that all plastic in the environment has the potential to be a source of microplastics. This includes nearly all the plastic that’s been made – ever.

How much do we ingest?

Many people may not have heard of microplastics before, but we’ve been ingesting them for years. Scientists first described the existence of microplastics in the 1970s. 

But, according to Dr Thava Palanisami, an expert in contamination at the University of Newcastle, research on where they come from and their impact on human health only really stepped up in 2004.

“Worldwide data shows that water is the biggest source [of microplastics in the environment] because so many microplastics, including from industry, wash down the drain and existing technologies aren’t designed to remove all of it,” he says.

An from the University of Newcastle suggests that the average person could be consuming about 5g of microplastics every week – that’s about the equivalent of a credit card.

Other estimates are that the average person potentially consumes as many as 1769 particles of microplastic a week just from drinking water, 182 from eating shellfish, and 21 from consuming beer and salt.

A recent Canadian study found that some every time you brew one up. The researchers found that, when brewed, some ‘premium’ pyramid-shaped teabags, which are made from plastic rather than the traditional paper, released about 11.6 billion microplastic and 3.1 billion nanoplastic particles into the water.

“These levels were thousands of times higher than those reported previously in other foods,” say the researchers.

This problem isn’t about to go away either – because we’re producing more plastic than ever before. According to a by the World Wildlife Fund, the production of ‘virgin plastic’ (brand-new plastic made from raw materials) has increased 200-fold since 1950, and production has grown by four percent every year since 2000. 

If plastic production continues at the current rate, the amount of plastic we’re making could swell by 40% by 2030. 

Are microplastics bad for us?

True, the idea of billions of tiny plastic particles swimming around in our food and water doesn’t sound very appealing. But we simply don’t know enough about what impact, if any, they may be having on our bodies and our health.

Although microplastics are still a consideration if we eat whole fish such as sardines, FSANZ says human consumption via fish is “likely to be negligible” because we’re unlikely to eat the parts of fish where microplastics have been found, such as the gills, liver and intestines. 

However, research indicates that eating shellfish and mussels could be a “possible route of human exposure”.

FSANZ says: “Our current view is that plastic contamination of the food chain is unlikely to result in immediate health risks to consumers.”

Palanisami says the simple fact is that microplastics are not natural materials, so in theory “it can’t be good for us”. 

But just what kind of negative impact they have on humans isn’t known yet. “There are studies ongoing at the moment, so it may take a few years until we know more,” Palanisami adds.

There is evidence that some chemicals in plastics can cause cancer, for example vinyl chloride in PVC or endocrine disruptors such as BPA and phthalates (DEEHP). 

Microplastics can also absorb toxic contaminants and give off pollutants, which then escape and accumulate in the environment. But there’s no study to show what effect microplastics are having on us and our health – yet. 

The researchers who did the tea bag experiment also explored how the particles affected the health of very small aquatic organisms called water fleas. They found that the fleas survived, but did have some anatomical and behavioral abnormalities. 

One of the researchers, Laura Hernandez, says that more research is needed to determine whether the plastics could have subtle or chronic effects on humans.

WHO agrees, saying that “although there is insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the toxicity related to the physical hazard of plastic particles, particularly for the nano size particles, no reliable information suggests it is a concern.”

In March 2018, an analysis of bottled water revealed that 90% of popular brands tested contained microplastics. One brand contained as many as 10,000 particles per bottle. Another study also found high levels of microplastics in treated tap water. 

In response, WHO launched a review into the safety of drinking water, acknowledging that although many people are concerned, there is “very scarce” information and that “a better understanding of overall exposure to microplastics from the broader environment is needed”.

How can I avoid ingesting microplastics?

Given that microplastics are absolutely everywhere in our environment, our water and our food supplies, it’s simply not possible to avoid consuming them. 

WHO says if we want to reduce the amount of microplastics in our lives, we need to change how we use and manage plastic. 

“Actions to minimise [the] release of plastic products in the environment will help to reduce exposure to microplastics,” WHO says. “Actions could include improving recycling programs, reducing littering, improving circular solutions and decreasing industrial waste inputs into the environment.”

Palanisami agrees: “The important thing is to reduce our use of plastics, so we can reduce the flow of it,” he says. “For us, avoidance isn’t possible, it’s more that we need to increase awareness.”

Several countries have banned the use of microbeads, including the UK, USA, New Zealand and Canada. 

In Australia, the Department of the Environment and Energy introduced a voluntary phase-out of microbeads in cosmetics, skin care and some cleaning products between 2016 and 2018. In 2017, the department reported that 94% of these items were microbead-free, but the use of these tiny pieces of plastic remains legal in Australia.

The post What are microplastics, and how bad for us are they? appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

You’d have trouble finding a BPA baby bottle these days, but plenty of plastics and canned foods – including baby foods – may still contain significant levels of BPA.

The facts

• BPA is a toxic chemical that can leach into foods from the lacquer lining of cans and from other food containers and bottles made from certain plastics.
• In 2010, a ÌÇÐÄVlog test found BPA in a wide range of canned foods – including baby foods – at levels that many experts believe to be harmful. Other organisations, including Australia’s national food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), have reported similar findings.
• There’s no reason to believe that we’re less exposed to BPA now than in 2010.  Industry practice hasn’t changed; FSANZ continues to maintain that BPA is safe at the levels commonly found in foods.

What we tested

In 2010 ÌÇÐÄVlog tested for BPA in a broad range of canned food products. More than half the products we tested contained BPA at levels that some experts believe could be hazardous to human health. Five of the 38 samples contained more than 200 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA; a further 17 samples contained BPA at levels within the 10ppb to 200ppb range.

We were particularly concerned to find relatively high levels of BPA in some canned baby and infant foods.

Australia’s national food regulator, (FSANZ), has carried out its own tests with similar results. In the US, our sister organisation , and the (a coalition of public health and environmental health organisations) have both reported tests showing even higher levels of BPA in some canned foods than here.

What is BPA?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It was first synthesised by a Russian chemist in 1891. In the 1930s it was identified as a synthetic oestrogen and considered for pharmaceutical use but it remained little more than a laboratory curiosity until the 1960s, when BPA-based plastics were first manufactured.

World production is now about six million tonnes per year, most of it used for the production of the polycarbonate (used to make CDs, spectacles lenses, water bottles and many other consumer products requiring a clear plastic) – and resins such as the material used to line food cans to prevent corrosion.

Is BPA dangerous?

BPA is an endocrine disruptor – meaning that it’s a chemical that can interfere with the endocrine (or hormonal system). Endocrine disruptors can cause cancerous tumours, birth defects and other developmental disorders. Specifically, BPA has been associated with breast and prostate cancers, genital defects in males, early onset of puberty in females, obesity and behavioural problems such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Human exposure to BPA is widespread. A government-funded survey in the US, for example, found detectable levels of BPA in the urine of 93% of people aged six years and older. The chemical leaches from the lining of cans, and from polycarbonate bottles and other polycarbonate food containers – especially when heated or abraded by cleaning.

What we found

While none of the foods we tested contained BPA in excess of the EU limit of 600ppm (there is no limit set in Australia), 33 of the 38 samples contained at least some BPA. Just one serving of 29 of them would give a 70kg adult more BPA than some experts now believe to be a safe daily level of exposure (0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day).

But the experts don’t all agree…

No one disputes that BPA is toxic at high levels of exposure. But experts are divided over whether BPA at the low levels found in foods poses significant risks to human health.

FSANZ, in line with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), maintains that it’s safe to ingest up to 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day – none of the foods we tested delivers more than 10% of this amount per serving.

The science, however, has moved on. Many independent experts are now concerned that this limit is based on experiments done in the 1980s, rather than on the hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies that suggest we could be at risk from doses that are much lower.

‘The dose makes the poison’

Scientists are divided over a traditionally fundamental principle of toxicology – that experiments with high doses will generally reveal the potential hazards of low doses. This assumption originates from the work of the 16th century toxicologist Paracelus, whose dictum “the dose makes the poison” (implying that even toxic substances can be safe as long as the dose remains below a certain threshold) is still a bedrock principle for toxicologists. For example, Dr Paul Brent, FSANZ’s Chief Scientist, writes:

“In today’s world, [this] fear is often generated by published reports linking chemicals to various illnesses or effects and drawing assumptions about the relevance of animal studies to people. What is sometimes missed in these reports and what some people remain unaware of is the basic principle of toxicology that ‘the dose makes the poison’.”

Effects from low doses

Decades of research in endocrinology have consistently shown that hormonally active compounds can cause effects at low doses opposite to those at high doses. So with endocrine disruptors like BPA, a low dose could be worse than a higher size dose.

Such low-dose effects now have enough scientific credibility for the American Medical Association (AMA) to call on the US government to legislate to decrease the public’s exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In particular, the AMA stated that “policy should be based on comprehensive data covering both low-level and high-level exposures”.

But there’s no scientific consensus. When European experts met in 2012 via the European Food Safety Authority, views on the significance of low-dose effects differed across scientific disciplines. Some experts were convinced that low-dose effects should be an essential part of any risk assessment, while others said more research is needed.

The chemical industry defends BPA

The chemicals industry typically argues that while there have been hundreds of studies on BPA, none has shown a direct cause-and-effect relationship between BPA and any human health effects.

BPA and the plastics made from it are big business – so it’s hardly surprising that the industry protects its interests through ‘awareness’ campaigns such as . But as Richard Littlemore has pointed out in the New Scientist:

“You can’t beat doubt as a corporate strategy – especially if your product is life-threatening when used as directed. These days we don’t have to speculate as to whether industries have manufactured doubt. They have admitted it too many times. Where tobacco led the way, coal and chemicals followed. And, of course, the fossil fuel industry has been working overtime – and with shocking success – creating doubt about climate change. Techniques appear to be limited only by the imagination …”

The evidence is increasing

While the evidence for low-dose effects from BPA is mostly based on experiments with rats or mice, and is far from conclusive, there’s now too much of it to be ignored. There’s growing evidence correlating environmental exposure to BPA with adverse effects in humans, along with laboratory studies in many other animal species, including primates, providing further support that environmental BPA exposure can be harmful to humans, especially when we’re talking about behavioural and other effects in children.

Why it’s bad for babies and kids

Babies and young children are most at risk because of their small body weight and rapid growth. One serving of several of the infant foods we tested delivers about 50 micrograms of BPA in one hit, so a 10kg infant would get 10% of the safe exposure limit from this one source alone.

At present, regulatory frameworks don’t take into account the possibility of low dose effects, a fact that is causing some scientists to fear their research is being ignored by the regulators. Tamara Galloway, professor of ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter in the UK, writes:

“There seems to be so much evidence of low dose effects and the perception that some scientists have had is that the industry regulators have ignored their evidence. … [But] I think we are getting somewhere now – everyone seems to be talking to everybody else.”

Overseas action from government regulators

Because of consumer concerns, Canada, the European Union and some states of the US have phased-out the use of BPA in some products. In the US at the federal level, the FDA is taking steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. These steps include:

• supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the US market,
• facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans,
• supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimise BPA levels in other food can linings.

In Australia, nothing has been done other than introduction of a purely voluntary phase-out by major retailers of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles containing BPA. FSANZ still maintains that BPA is harmless at current levels of exposure.

What’s the local industry doing?

The short answer appears to be: very little. In 2010, we called on the food industry to take more urgent action to phase out food packaging materials that release toxic chemicals into food.

In response to our test results, Heinz announced in 2010 that it would move to BPA-free packaging for baby food products. A company spokesman told us, “While we believe there is no risk to consumers, we are keen to allay any concern and so have opted to remove BPA from all baby food packaging.”

Simplot (manufacturer of Edgell and John West) told us in 2010 that they were sensitive to consumer concerns and had cans with BPA-free linings under test. But in 2014 little has changed. Simplot told us that the company “continues to closely monitor the latest research and limits set for BPA, and all testing conducted on its canned food products show them to be below the limits set by the EU.” They add, “Simplot continues to work with its suppliers to review and test alternate coatings that may provide a commercially viable option.”

Perhaps none of this is surprising because finding a product to replace BPA-based resins for lining cans is technically challenging and there are few alternatives available. There would also be concerns about whether any proposed alternative was actually safer than BPA.

How to avoid BPA

You can protect your own and your family’s health by minimising your exposure to BPA.

• Look for BPA-free products. More and more BPA-free products have come to market. Look for products labelled as BPA-free. If a product isn’t labelled, keep in mind that some, but not all, plastics marked with recycle codes 3 or 7 may be made with BPA.
• Cut back on cans. Reduce your use of canned foods, since most cans are lined with BPA-containing resin.
• Avoid heat. Experts advise against microwaving polycarbonate plastics or putting them in the dishwasher because the plastic may break down over time and allow BPA to leach into foods.
• Use alternatives. Use glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers for hot foods and liquids instead of plastic containers.

The post BPA in canned foods appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.

On this page:

• The problem with plastic
• What's the risk?
• Plastics codes explained
• Plastic products to avoid

The problem with plastic

Plastic as such isn’t a problem. The polymer molecules from which it’s made are far too big to move from the packaging material into the food. 

But plastic can also contain much smaller molecules that are free to migrate into the food it’s in contact with. The plastic itself can slowly break down, releasing monomer, or other chemicals may be added to the plastic to give it the right mechanical properties. 

Two plastics of particular concern are:

Polycarbonate

Often used to make food storage containers and bottles, and the epoxy resin used to line cans. It can release bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that many experts now believe can cause serious health problems.

PVC

Used to make bottles, cling wrap and the seals for screw-cap jars. On its own, PVC is hard and rigid (it’s used to make drains, guttering and downpipes), so extra chemicals called plasticisers are added to make it soft and flexible – in much the same way water added to clay makes it soft. Plasticisers can make up as much as 40% of the plastic material. Phthalates and epoxidised soybean oil (ESBO) are often added as plasticisers to the PVC that’s used for food packaging. Again, recent research raises doubts about the safety of these compounds.

What’s the risk?

BPA and some phthalates are endocrine disruptors, meaning they can mimic the body’s natural hormones and thereby cause a raft of health problems. 

Infants and the very young are most vulnerable to exposure because of their lower body weight and because their growth and development are strongly influenced by hormones; the effects on health can be lifelong. 

These effects have been seen clearly and consistently in experiments with animals, and when people or wildlife have been accidentally exposed to high levels of endocrine disruptors.

While these compounds are undoubtedly hazardous at high levels of exposure, scientific opinion is divided over the risk from the much lower levels that we’re exposed to every day in our food. 

There is, however, growing scientific evidence that even at these lower levels of exposure, phthalates and BPA may be causing problems such as infertility, obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

BPA

BPA is rapidly eliminated from the body, but because of continuous exposure most of us have detectable levels of BPA in our body tissue. 

Typical levels, however, are well below the daily upper limit of safe exposure set by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority. 

But many independent scientists have expressed concern that this limit is based on experiments done in the 1980s, rather than on the hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies suggesting we could be at risk from much lower doses. 

Such low dose effects now have enough scientific credibility for the American Medical Association (AMA) to call on the US government to enact new federal policies to decrease the public’s exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In particular, the AMA stated that, “Policy should be based on comprehensive data covering both low-level and high-level exposures.”

Not surprisingly, the plastics industry strenuously refutes these findings and continues to insist that BPA is harmless at the low levels to which we’re regularly exposed in our food. But while the evidence is far from conclusive, there’s now far too much of it to be ignored. The underlying science is sound and the potential for such effects is real.

Phthalates

Phthalates are now used in so many products they are almost impossible to avoid. A Swiss study found people who eat healthily and try to avoid chemical additives in their food are exposed to much the same levels of phthalates as those who eat junk food and don’t worry about their diet at all. 

Experiments with animals have consistently shown that some phthalates can be endocrine disruptors but, as with BPA, the evidence for adverse health effects from low-level exposure to phthalates is more limited. Again, though, there’s too much of it to be ignored.

Because of its low cost, DEHP is the phthalate most often used as a plasticiser for PVC. Experts now generally agree that low level exposure to DEHP can affect reproductive development, particularly in young boys, and a US study has found a link between exposure to phthalates and increased risk of diabetes and obesity in men.

ESBO

ESBO is one of the most frequently used additives to PVC when used for containers or packaging for food. It functions as a stabiliser as well as a plasticiser. Lid seals are formed at high temperatures, which causes the PVC in the seal to partially break down and release hydrogen chloride.

ESBO reacts with the hydrogen chloride and prevents further breakdown of the plastic, but in doing so it forms compounds called chlorohydrins. Chlorohydrins make up, at most, five percent of the ESBO but they can be toxic. Chlorohydrins have been detected in foods closed in glass screw-cap jars.

Plastics codes explained

Some plastics are safer than others. Use this guide to see which ones are best avoided.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Identification code: 1

Uses:

• Bottles used for water and softdrinks
• Jars for products such as peanut butter
• Lightweight and ‘green’ wine bottles

Risks: No known health hazards

High density polyethylene (HDPE)

Identification code: 2

Uses:

• Bottles used for milk and cream
• Yoghurt cups
• Bags that line breakfast cereal packets

Risks: No known health hazards

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

Identification code: 3

Uses:

• Shrink and cling wrap
• Clear plastic containers for fresh fruit or takeaway sandwiches
• Some soft drink bottles
• The gaskets that form a seal on screw-cap glass jars

Risks: Contains plasticisers such as DEHA or phthalates that can leach into food.

Low density polyethylene (LDPE)

Identification code: 4

Uses:

• Take-away containers
• Waterproof coating on milk cartons
• Bags used for bread and frozen foods
• Cling wrap

Risks: No known health hazards.

Polypropylene (PP)

Identification code: 5

Uses:

• Bottle caps
• Yoghurt and margarine containers
• Food storage boxes

Risks: No known health hazards.

Polystyrene (PS)

Identification code: 6

Uses:

• Plastic cutlery
• Drinking cups and yoghurt cups
• Cups for hot coffee (polystyrene foam)
• Lightweight trays used by supermarket to package and sometimes vegetables (polystyrene foam)

Risks: Researchers have investigated possible health risks from traces of styrene monomer. This risk seems to be low.

Other plastics, including polycarbonate

Identification code: 7

Uses:

• Bottles for sauces and condiments
• Babies’ feeding bottles and infants’ drinking cups
• Reusable water bottles for cyclists and athletes

Risks: Polycarbonate can release BPA into food, especially when bottles are washed for reuse.

Plastic products to avoid

Most food and drink is packaged in containers made from plastics that seem to be harmless (see table above). Soft drinks and bottled water are usually in PET bottles, for example, while yoghurt and margarine containers are usually made from polypropylene. There’s clearly no real need for food manufacturers to use packaging or wrapping made from potentially harmful plastics like polycarbonate or PVC, but there are still far too many products in the supermarkets where the food is in contact with them.

• You can often identify the type of plastic from its identification code – unfortunately, this code is voluntary and you won’t find it on all plastic packaging. Look for the codes 1 (PET), 2 (HDPE), 4 (LDPE), 5 (PP) and 6 (PS). Whenever possible avoid the codes 3 (PVC) or 7 (a catch-all category that includes polycarbonate).
• Avoid fresh meat, fruit or vegetables wrapped in cling wrap. Most cling wrap sold for domestic use is now made from low density polyethylene (4), which seems to be safe, but supermarkets and many independent butchers and greengrocers are still wrapping meat and fresh vegetables in cling wrap made from PVC.
• Avoid reusable plastic bottles with the symbol 7 (or look for product labels that say “BPA-free”). Keep in mind that heating and washing polycarbonate bottles can increase the amount of BPA that leaches out.
• Consider cutting down on canned foods, as can linings can leach BPA directly into food.
• While some plastics such as polypropylene (often used for take-away containers) seem to be OK, as a general rule it’s probably safer to avoid using any plastic containers when cooking or reheating food in a microwave oven. Use glass containers for high-fat foods, as toxic chemicals are more likely to migrate into fatty foods at high temperatures.

What are the regulators doing?

The plastics industry has been fighting off tighter regulation. It’s a huge industry with vast resources (worldwide, it produces about 0.4 million tonnes per year of phthalates and more than two million tonnes of BPA) and independent scientists have complained about an aggressive disinformation campaign. Certainly, industry websites blatantly highlight studies that support their point of view and ignore those that don’t.

In 2008 the Productivity Commission recommended that the Australian government establish a more systematic research program to identify and deal with the risks of chemicals in consumer articles, but to date there’s been little action. Our regulators could do more to protect consumers; a lack of evidence of harm is not evidence of safety.

The use of plastics for wrapping or packaging foods is governed by the Food Standards Code, which sets a limit for the level permitted in food of highly toxic vinyl chloride monomer (10 parts per billion) yet no specific limits for BPA, DEHA or phthalates. These compounds come under a vague clause in this code that prohibits materials “likely to cause bodily harm, distress or discomfort”. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), our food regulator, maintains that BPA and phthalates pose no significant health risks at the low levels found in food. 

Consumers in Europe and North America are better protected. 

BPA

Canada, the European Union and some states of the US have phased-out the use of BPA in some products. In the US at the federal level, the FDA is taking steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. These steps include:

• supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the US market
• facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans
• supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimise BPA levels in other food can linings.

In Australia, nothing has been done other than the introduction of a purely voluntary phase-out by major retailers of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles containing BPA.   

Phthalates

The European Union began to take action on phthalates in 1999. As a result six phthalates (including DEHP) have been banned in toys and other children’s products at levels greater than 0.1%. The EU has also restricted the use of these phthalates in food contact applications. Since 2008 the US has banned DEHP and other phthalates at levels greater than 0.1% in toys and childcare articles.

In Australia, the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) reported on DEHP in 2010 and recommended action. DEHP is now banned from toys and childcare articles, but only at levels exceeding one per cent – a limit 10 times higher than in the US and the EU.

ESBO

While there’s no evidence that ESBO itself is harmful, an expert committee appointed by the European Union (EU) to review the evidence about ESBO concluded that “in the absence of adequate analytical and toxicological data on ESBO derivatives, no advice can yet be given on the significance for health of such derivatives in foods”.

In other words, we can’t be sure that our health is not being put at risk from the use of ESBO.

The post Is plastic food packaging dangerous? appeared first on ÌÇÐÄVlog.