Summary of plastic packaging risks for ultra-processed foods
- UPFs linked to poor health and additional risks from plastic packaging
- Plastic packaging chemicals like bisphenols, phthalates and PFAS migrate into foods
- Sterilisation increase chemical migration risks
- Fatty UPFs and heavy processing raise exposure to migrating plastic substances
- Industry can reduce harms using inert reusable materials and rethinking packaging
Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have been frequently associated with poor health.
They have been linked to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease and even mental health issues.
However, while the foods themselves have been given most of the attention, research indicates that plastic packaging may add further health risks.
Harms linked to plastic packaging are well-known. But why does packaging for UPFs in particular pose a risk?
What are the harms associated with plastic packaging?
Plastic food packaging often contains chemicals such as bisphenols, phthalates, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (known as PFAS).
These chemicals can migrate from food contact packaging into foods.
Many of these chemicals have consistently been associated with negative health outcomes. For example, Bisphenol A has been linked to cardiovascular disease, and phthalates have been associated with harmful effects on fertility.
Food contact materials also lead to the migration of microplastics and nanoplastics into food. Microplastics and nanoplastics have been linked to negative health impacts including increased stroke risk and changing gene expression.
Yet of course, food contact packaging is used for many foods that are not UPFs. Why are UPFs in particular singled out as a problem?
UPFs and extending shelf life
Ultra-processed foods are often produced by companies with centralised production systems, meaning that they are shipped around the world.
Because of this, says Jane Muncke, managing director of nonprofit Food Packaging Forum, they must have a long shelf-life. Plastic packaging is extremely beneficial to improving shelf-life and is used more frequently than other materials.
Companies want products to be as light as possible. Because of this, they often use lightweight packaging. Food packaging materials such as glass or ceramics are more difficult to ship around the world, as they are heavier.
In order to extend shelf-life further, suggests Muncke, food packaging is sometimes sterilised. This involves high temperatures, which can increase migration.
UPFs and migrating chemicals
Ultra-processed foods have several attributes which make them particularly vulnerable to such chemicals migrating into them.
UPFs can be more vulnerable to migration because they’re often high in fat. Fat-soluble chemicals – the “vast majority” of chemicals in plastic – will migrate better in fatty foods than non-fatty foods, explains Muncke.
Furthermore, increased processing levels mean that food is in contact with more processing equipment, from which similar chemicals may migrate when the food is in contact with it.
“The more processing you’re doing with a foodstuff, the more it will be in contact.”
There is a significant body of evidence that links UPFs to higher levels of the substances mentioned above. For example, one study found that highly-processed products are more likely to contain microplastics, while another linked UPF consumption to the presence of phthalates in urine.
How can industry address the impact of packaging?
The key to reducing packaging’s harmful impact is ‘inertness’, says Muncke. An inert material is one that is chemically and physically stable, and chemicals do not migrate from them into food.
Inert materials, such as glass, ceramics and stainless steel, do not pose the same risks as plastic for packaging. For example, micro and nanoplastics are not generated by their use. The more inert a material is, the fewer chemicals migrate from it into food, Muncke stresses.
The use of reusable materials also requires more infrastructure, as they need to be cleaned and refilled, an additional expense for business.
Alongside shifting to these materials, manufacturers should change the way they think about packaging. Packaging should not be an “afterthought”, stresses Muncke, but a central part of product development. Consumers are becoming “packaging conscious”, and care about packaging materials. For example, many are attracted to ketchup in a glass bottle.
In short, if manufacturers want to avoid the negative impacts linked to plastic packaging, they should rethink how they approach it, and make it more central to how they produce products.
