The legislation on the use of recycled plastic in food packaging, especially as regards PET, is favoring a widespread use both in the beverage sector and in food trays

Having obtained certification from EFSA, manufacturers are using post-consumer recycled plastic in food packaging.

the doubt that arises from many parts concerns the certainty or not of the possible transfer by the recycled plastic, of harmful substances that can migrate to man, as the checks are made not on the food contained in the packaging but on the production processes.

The article by below describes the problem through the interview with Floriana Cimmarusti is Secretary General of Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE).

Until now, companies have not used recycled plastics in food packaging due to safety concerns. But times are changing and they seem ready to reconsider their position: the EU is about to authorize more than 100 “safe” recycling processes for food contact applications.

Floriana Cimmarusti is Secretary General of Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE), a non-profit organization based in Brussels: spoke about the toxicity risks in recycled plastic packaging.

We propose below the translation of the interview that he gave to the Euractiv news magazine.

“The risk of toxic substances contaminating food already exists with virgin plastic, so it will only be higher with recycled packaging from old plastics that may contain banned chemicals ”says Floriana Cimmarusti.

Companies like Tetra Pak have never used recycled plastics in food packaging due to safety concerns. They now appear ready to reconsider their position ahead of the EU decision to authorize more than 100 "safe" recycling processes for food contact applications.

So what has changed? Are recycling processes now safer?

No, it's just that those recycling processes will now be formally authorized for use in food contact applications. Therefore Tetra Pak and other companies will be legally protected if they use recycled plastics that have been manufactured using these authorized processes.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has already given a favorable opinion on these recycling processes, therefore as soon as the European Commission will approve them through the comitology procedure, it will become law.

Legally, food packaging companies will then be able to use all the recycled plastics they want. And in case something goes wrong, they will be protected by EU law against potential litigation by consumer groups. Without this type of authorization, it would be very risky for companies to use recycled plastics.

Food packaging companies have no interest in seeing a scandal break out over the safety of their products. So they have to trust that at least some of these processes are indeed safe.

I'm sure they believe the system is safe. But as soon as the EU approves the process, they will not face any legal risk, which is a key point for them.

Recycled plastic can come from very different places and contamination can happen very easily, for example when people mix the trash they goes into their containers for recycling. Can a standard procedure approved at EU level actually ensure that no contamination occurs?

PET is the only type of plastic that is easier to clean in the recycling process, and therefore considered the safest after recycling.

But there will always be a risk. Many types of plastics absorb chemicals during waste management and it is very difficult during recycling to eliminate them.

For example, it is a challenge to introduce sorting systems that separate food contact materials from non-food plastics. The risk of toxic contaminating food is already present with virgin plastics, so it will only be higher with recycled plastics than old plastics that may contain highly toxic and prohibited chemicals.

For example, levels of oligomers (unintentional by-products of plastic that migrate into food) are higher in recycled plastic than in plastic virgin. Some tests have also shown that migration levels in vegetable oils are higher with recycled plastics than with virgin plastics.

Also, a lot of unidentified contaminants were found in recycled plastic that we don't find in virgin plastic. These contaminants come from cross-contamination during waste management.

Finally, a lot of additives are found in recycled PET that are absent in virgin plastics or present in much smaller quantities, and these additives have been shown to have higher migration rates in recycled plastics than in virgin plastics.

Thus, the risk of contamination with recycled plastic is clearly higher than that of virgin plastic.

The European Commission is preparing to approve 140 new recycling processes for use in food contact applications such as packaging. EFSA has already expressed a favorable opinion to all but 3 of them, in which the assessment was inconclusive. What do you know about these 140 recycling processes? Am I really safe?

I do not think that the risk assessment procedure used by EFSA can give us full certainty that recycled plastics are safe.

As I said, many types of plastics absorb chemicals during use and waste management, which are difficult to remove during recycling. Furthermore, it is important to remember that EFSA's risk assessment focuses on starting the recycling process, not on the finished product that comes out at the end. Therefore, there is no serious analysis of chemicals at the end of each recycling process.

And this data is currently lacking. Furthermore, the cumulative exposure is not taken into account by EFSA when the exposures are estimated.

Now, most of these recycling processes involve PET plastic, which is one of the few exceptions that allows for quite thorough cleaning during recycling.

However, even in PET, plastic polymers often degrade during use and recycling. And this can result in oligomers that can migrate into food.

Brominated flame retardants have been found regularly in plastic articles intended for materials in contact with food, which clearly indicates that waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) was used in the process. And this is clearly not allowed. So better application is needed to improve this situation.

Was there a sufficient amount of control over these 140 EFSA-approved recycling processes?

No, due to the questionable EFSA risk assessment procedure. We must not forget that some of the data submitted to EFSA by the complainant companies are confidential trade secrets , as for glyphosate.

In the case of glyphosate, part of the data, the important one, has been obscured from the official text. I'm afraid the same happens with those recycling processes. So we can't read all the data. And there is no scientific review of the data presented by an independent laboratory.

Clearly, there isn't enough research to tell us whether or not recycled plastic is dangerous for consumers. So I think it's a little too fast to adopt 140 methodologies in such a short time. We simply don't know how many chemicals there will still be at the end of the recycling process and what kind of migration will take place in the food.

In an ideal world, how would a safe recycling process for food contact applications work?

An independent research center should conduct the risk assessment. And the data required for this assessment should be collected by an independent organization, not by the industry that requires approval of the recycling process. We shouldn't just trust the research done by companies, which is what's happening right now.

We believe there should be no compromise between consumer safety and economic profit.

The Commission wants to use an accelerated approval procedure for those 140 recycling processes, which means that Parliament and the Council will not have the opportunity to check decisions before they are made. How does it feel?

We don't feel comfortable with that. The European Parliament should be involved so that consumer health can be adequately protected. It is really a pity that Parliament cannot say anything about it.

Plastic is lightweight and economical, making it a convenient option for food packaging. So what are the green alternatives?

An alternative could be glass because it does not cause the migration of chemicals into food. With aluminum or plastic, there is. Of course, it would not be practical to pack everything in glass - it is heavy, it can break, etc. And the problem with bio-based alternatives is that they aren't strong enough.

But there are some alternatives. We are campaigning with restaurants and bars to encourage them to use alternatives to disposable plastic cups for coffee and tea, such as bamboo.

When you put something hot in plastic, there is more migration of chemicals, so the campaign raises awareness of alternatives.

You can also use reusable steel containers or try to sell as many plastic free or bulk products as possible. More and more stores sell products such as pasta, nuts, sweets or rice in pieces that customers put in cotton bags that they take to shop.

Related Articles

Automatic translation. We apologize for any inaccuracies. Original article in Italian.

Veganoc Observatory