Chemicals of Concern: 5 Gyres’ Conversation with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
When the American Chemistry Council, Greenpeace, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and top scientists come together to discuss how science should shape plastics policy, you know it’s going to be interesting.
Last month, the Ocean Plastics Leadership Summit convened a diverse group of stakeholders – from industry, policy, science, and advocacy – to tackle the urgent issue of forever chemicals in our food system, whether as additives or in packaging. The first day focused on the global stage, addressing how these Chemicals of Concern will be handled in the UN Global Plastics Treaty. The second day turned to U.S. policy, and Secretary Kennedy spent time on and off stage to listen to the perspectives of the experts in the room.
Dr. Marcus Eriksen, Co-founder & Researcher at the 5 Gyres Institute, participated in a roundtable discussion with other leading scientists, Dr. Jane Muncke, Dr. John Warner, and Dr. Leonardo Trasande, to discuss actionable ways to address public health through food and packaging.
What do ocean plastics have to do with chemical additives in plastic packaging?
That’s the question 5 Gyres brought to the table. We’ve surveyed the planet, from microfibers floating in the air we breathe to the 170 trillion plastic particles adrift in the middle of the ocean. Here’s the connection: once plastics are in the environment, they become little sponges that soak up hydrophobic pollutants, like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). These are the same flame retardants found in our kitchen utensils, carpets, and curtains (Environmental Monitoring and Contaminants Research). Other persistent pollutants, like DDT and PCBs, are also found adsorbed onto plastics adrift as far from land as possible. We call these “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in our bodies and the environment, their ubiquity, and mobility. All the way from the middle of the ocean, these chemicals can be traced back to everyday items in our homes.
Consider the chemicals used in packaging, such as bisphenol A and phthalates. While they serve their intended purpose to make some plastics soft or create waterproof barrier coatings, they are linked to endocrine disruption, imitating hormones that trigger premature development and early puberty. Similarly, flame retardants in kitchenware and PFAS in grease-resistant paper cartons have been linked to cancers, childhood obesity, and increased mortality. In 2008, 5 Gyres’ co-founder, Anna Cummins, tested her blood when she was pregnant, finding trace levels of PCBs, DDT, and PFCs and higher levels of flame retardants. The science documenting the harm from these chemicals is clear, so why are they still found in products and packaging today?
One reason stems from a loophole in a 65-year-old FDA exemption called Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS). In 1958, as U.S. food producers began using a variety of chemicals that showed early signs of toxicity, the FDA moved to regulate them. This prompted the manufacturers of simple products, like sugar, salt, and baking soda, to argue that because they’re selling ingredients that have been considered safe for decades, they should be exempt from the new requirements. GRAS was designed as a way to streamline the approval process for products deemed safe, bypassing the lengthy approval process. However, this process became corrupted and ultimately allowed companies to “self-affirm” the safety of their own products and chemical additives without independent oversight.
A recent study exposed the reality of the self-affirming nature of this loophole (JAMA Internal Medicine). Researchers evaluated 451 GRAS exemptions and analyzed who was responsible for approving them. They found that 13 percent of safety assessments were conducted by consulting firms hired by the additive manufacturers, and 64 percent were written by expert panels selected by those same firms. Most notably, 22 percent were written by employees of the same company applying for the exemption. These safety assessments could be self-affirmed, allowing companies to bypass FDA oversight and grant themselves a GRAS exemption, essentially stamping their own product’s safety.
Needless to say, this conflict of interest has been one pathway for chemical additives to make their way into products and packaging – despite clear scientific evidence of their toxicity and harmful effects. When Dr. Eriksen asked Secretary Kennedy how we can ensure the safety of the chemistry used in food packaging, he responded, “We will close the GRAS loophole.”
As microplastic pollution – and its associated chemicals – continue to impact our health, it’s clear that we need our nation’s leaders to take action.
We need bold action on microplastics to safeguard public health before the damage becomes irreversible. Join us by contacting your elected officials and demanding a #MicroplasticFreeUS now.
References:
(1) Ohgaki, T., Takada, H., Yoshida, R., Mizukawa, K., Yeo, B.G., Alidoust, M., Hirai, N., Yamashita, R., Tokumaru, T., Watanabe, I. and Onwona-Agyeman, S., 2021. International pellet watch: Global monitoring of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in plastic resin pellets. Environmental Monitoring and Contaminants Research, 1, pp.75-90.
(2) Neltner, T.G., Alger, H.M., O’Reilly, J.T., Krimsky, S., Bero, L.A. and Maffini, M.V., 2013. Conflicts of interest in approvals of additives to food determined to be generally recognized as safe: out of balance. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(22).