News

Plastic packaging toxicity a ‘ticking timebomb’ for FMCG companies

Studies on the toxicity of plastic have spiked in the past decade – and the evidence points to a “ticking timebomb” for manufacturers and consumers alike, an analysis suggests.

Underlying chemical components for almost half (45%) the additives analysed could not be identified, according to the non-profit financial think tank Planet Tracker and the Safer Chemistry Impact Fund, a blended capital fund, which carried out the research.

They assessed publicly available data to determine the hazard profile of 18,020 plastic additive products produced by 100 major plastic companies. Among the chemicals that could be identified, one in four (25%) scored in the most hazardous categories – including bisphenols and PFAS, so-called forever chemicals.

And as many as 11% of identified additives contained chemicals for which there is no available data on their potential harms, presenting “future financially material risk”, the researchers warned.

“Investors and the public can only see surface-level risks from hazardous chemicals in plastic additives due to insufficient research and limited transparency from plastic companies,” said Richard Wielechowski, senior analyst at Planet Tracker. “What lies beneath could be a ticking timebomb for corporates using plastics and their investors.”

‘Significant data gaps’ on many chemicals

Chemicals are used in plastic packaging to provide flexibility, colouring, fillers, and durability against heat or sunlight.

The researchers used the non-profit ChemFORWARD’s toxicology reports, which score chemicals on factors including human health impacts such as links to cancer, and environmental outcomes including effects on climate and toxicity to biodiversity.

Chemicals are assigned to one of eight different bands that offer a summary of the overall hazard profile, ranging from A (lowest hazard) to F (highest hazard).

“Our analysis underlines the significant data gaps on many chemicals,” their report, Toxic additives: Analysing product portfolio risk, read.

Planet Tracker wants to see more companies “pushed” to undertake more studies and publish more data on their products. Indeed, the think tank warned that the risks for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies are real and rising – especially as scientific analysis of the chemical components in packaging, including that used for food and drink, increases.

Plastic additive risks ‘particularly important’ for manufacturers

The researchers, who also produced an assessment of the top 30 plastic suppliers’ product portfolios by hazard band, said the potential health and environmental risks of plastic additives are “particularly important” for the companies manufacturing the additives.

However, FMCG companies like Nestlé, Unilever, and Coca-Cola are also exposed by this lack of transparency.

“As an end user of plastics, do they know what is actually in the plastic bottle or wrap they use for

their product?” the researchers asked.

“Are they certain they are not, unintentionally, using plastic with additives already known to be hazardous or for which there is currently no data? Although they might not hold direct responsibility for these additives, we see a significant risk to their brands if it turns out their packaging was toxic.”

Tracking chemical exposure

The report points to the growing academic focus on plastic toxicity.

A study published in the journal Nature in July identified 16,325 chemicals associated with plastics, which is more than previously known. This included 5,776 additives, 3,498 processing aids, 1,975 starting substances, and 1,788 non-intentionally added substances.

Around 4,200 of the chemicals are “of concern” due to their known intrinsic properties that present human or environmental health hazards.

The researchers, from the Food Packaging Forum and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, also found that chemicals of concern can be present in and migrate from all major plastic types, including food packaging.

“There is a lot of momentum to make plastics safer,” said lead author Laura Monclús, from the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. “Our study provides the scientific evidence needed to achieve that goal and better protect human health and the environment from chemicals of concern in plastics.”

The team proposed the removal of known chemicals of concern.

“Disclosing the chemical composition and simplifying the formulation of plastics can provide pathways towards this goal,” they wrote.

When significant health impacts from chemicals are identified, regulators move to prohibit their use and lack of compliance can result in costly legal action for the companies involved.

Bill Walsh, fund director at Safer Chemistry Impact Fund, encouraged investors to assess the companies they are backing.

“Just as standardised carbon accounting metrics have become a means by which investors can evaluate a company’s success in identifying, reducing, and tracking greenhouse gas emissions, there are now reliable and practical metrics that investors can use to understand how well a company is identifying, reducing, and replacing high hazard chemicals with safer solutions,” he explained.