Weaning food & drink off ‘forever chemicals’ is not impossible

PFAS, also known as forever chemicals, have a range of uses in sectors from health to construction.

In food, they are used in packaging, pesticides and industrial processes, but have recently been found in abundance in foods themselves.

This is a problem. Some PFAS have links to a range of health issues, including cancer risk, liver damage, thyroid disease and even issues with fertility, which have made them highly controversial.

Nevertheless, there are alternatives. A database explores the known uses of PFAS, potential alternatives, and uses which don’t, as of yet, have an alternative.

The database stresses that not all of these have been tested to see whether they’re either technically feasible, or safer than PFAS.

What are the uses of PFAS in food?

There are around 4,700 PFASs, with only a fraction of these used in food and beverage.

A reason why the dilemma around PFASs exists in the first place is that despite the risks, they have such a wide range of practical uses that they can’t be easily cast aside.

For example, they are used in food packaging because they repel oil and water, which helps to maintain the product and protect the packaging.

Some PFAS also acts as as a waterproofing agent, anti-adhesive agent, heat stabiliser and corrosion inhibitor in industrial food and feed equipment. This improves durability, productivity and hygienic conditions.

Elsewhere in the food sector, PFASs are used as a lubricating agent, heat stabiliser and corrosion inhibitor.

Finally, PFAS is used in wineries and dairies, although the database says that the reasons for this are ‘unclear’.

What are the alternatives?

The obvious question is, then, what alternatives can be used?

Alternatives to PFAS are not always viable. Some research has suggested, for example, that ‘polymeric’ PFAS, intended to be a less harmful alternative, can break down into smaller particles which can still be harmful.

Nevertheless, alternatives do exist which can provide similar functionalities.

Many of the alternatives suggested by the database are fairly commonplace, while some are not. For example, for cookware, alternatives range from copper and stainless steel to anodized aluminium coating and superhydrophobic coatings, with carbon steel, ceramic coatings, silicone cookware, seasoned cast iron and enamelled cast iron in between.

For industrial food and feed equipment, the database suggests ceramic or silicone coatings, stainless steel, or synthetic rubbers and similar compounds as alternatives.

As a replacement for PFAS as as a lubricant additive in the food sector, the database suggests boron nitride, black phosphorous, water-based phenolic-melamine gold lacquer and other organics.

As an alternative for base oil and grease, it suggests silicone oil and Polydimethylsiloxanes or fatty acids.

For food packaging, a wide range of alternatives are posited.

Finally, the database includes a great many alternatives for pesticides, too many to list here.

There is a wide range of uses which don’t yet have a clear non-PFAS replacement.

In food and beverage, PFAS’s ‘unclear’ use in wineries and dairies is one.

Sourced From:

‘Database of alternatives to persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances, and to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).’

Published on: 2 April 2024

Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8434809.

Authors: R. Figuière, L. Miaz, E. Savvidou, I. Cousins