On January 26, 2022, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published a report on chemicals commonly used as replacements for long-chain per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in paper and board food packaging. Of the 58 alternatives examined, 45 were other fluorinated chemicals (aka short-chain PFAS) while 13 were non-fluorinated. The OECD found that for 18 of the alternative substances no hazard assessments were available, only ten alternatives had been formally reviewed by governmental authorities, and 26 by industry bodies.
The list of alternatives the OECD investigated came from a 2020 OECD/UNEP report on the commercial availability and use of long-chain PFAS alternatives in paper and board food packaging (FPF reported). The concern around regrettable substitution instigated the follow-up report on known hazards. According to the OECD, “the likelihood of regrettable substitution could be high if the health and environmental hazards of these alternatives are not understood and communicated.” Authoritative databases reviewed by the OECD came from government entities in over a dozen countries and geographic regions.
The OECD concluded that “the hazard profiles of the majority of alternatives to long-chain PFAS for paper and paperboard food packaging are poorly understood and/or not publicly available.” Many of the alternatives the OECD investigated were short-chain PFAS which have been shown to be similarly toxic to humans as the long-chain PFAS they are meant to replace (FPF reported, also here). Support is growing in North America and the EU to ban or control all PFAS as a class (FPF reported, also here and here)
On February 4, 2022, Environmental Health News (EHN) reported that there are more than 200 bills concerning PFAS that are currently or will soon be under review by 32 state governments in the United States. According to EHN, “At least 19 states will consider policies to regulate the use of PFAS, like restricting their use when it’s avoidable, requiring disclosures when the chemicals are found in consumer goods, or restricting their use in specific categories like cosmetics, textiles, and food packaging.”
On February 13, 2022, Washington State House of Representatives passed HB 1694. If passed by the state senate, this bill would give the Department of Ecology more power to act on PFAS-containing products including non-stick cookware. Similar bills have recently been submitted in Minnesota’s House of Representatives.
Read More
OECD (January 26, 2022). “PFAS and Alternatives in Food Packaging (Paper and Paperboard): Hazard Profile.” (pdf)
OECD (January 18, 2022). “Fact Cards of Major Groups of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs).” (pdf)
Chemical Watch (February 9, 2022). “OECD: Hazard knowledge lacking on PFAS alternatives in food packaging.”
Environmental Health News (February 4, 2022). “States will weigh more than 210 bills on toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in 2022.”
Toxic Free Future (February 14, 2022). “Washington State House of Representatives Approves Bill on PFAS “forever chemicals” and Improves Landmark Safer Products for Washington Law”
Kelly Franklin (February 15, 2022). “Washington state advances bill to strengthen safer products programme.” Chemical Watch
Ricardo Lopez (February 10, 2022). “DFL bills would ban PFAS in cookware, cosmetics and ski wax.” Minnesota Reformer
