Background Food contact chemicals (FCCs) are known to migrate from food packaging and other food contact articles into food. This leads to human exposure to FCCs, and some FCCs have been linked to human health effects such as chronic and non-communicable diseases. However, a systematic overview of the health effects of FCCs is missing.Objectives The objective of this study is to systematically map the relations between exposure to FCCs and human health effects within the Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study Design (PECOS) framework.Search strategy and eligibility criteria We will search PubMed for combinations of search terms related to the identity of the chemical and the epidemiological study design. The references will be screened at the title-and-abstract level, followed by the full-text level. Eligible references will be included according to predefined criteria, further specifying the elements of the applied PECOS framework.Data extraction and coding Information on human exposure to FCCs will be collected and linked to human health effects according to previously defined data categories and standardized terms. The human health effects will be classified based on the Six Clusters of Disease (SCOD) framework.Synthesis and visualization Results will be published in a narrative summary, and data will be made available in a freely accessible interactive dashboard, the Food Contact Chemicals Health Effect Matrix (FCChelix).

Science evolves but outdated testing and static risk management in the US delay protection to human health

Among the crises engulfing the world is the symbiotic rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and plastics. Together, this co-dependent duo generates substantial profits for agri-food and petrochemical industries at high costs for people and planet. Cheap, lightweight and highly functional, plastics have ideal properties that enable business models to create demand for low-cost, mass-produced and hyper-palatable UPFs among populations worldwide, hungry, or not. Evidence linking UPF consumption to deterioration in diet quality and higher risk of chronic diseases is well-established and growing rapidly. At the same time, the issue of plastic food contact chemicals (FCCs) is receiving increasing attention among the human health community, as is the generation and dispersion of micro- and nanoplastics. In this commentary, we explore how the lifecycles and shared economic benefits of UPFs and plastics interact to co-produce a range of direct and indirect harms. We caution that the chemical dimension of these harms is underappreciated, with thousands of plastic FCCs known to migrate into foodstuffs. Some of these are hazardous and have been detected in humans and the broader environment, while many are yet to be adequately tested. We question whether policies on both UPF and plastic chemicals are fit for purpose when production and consumption of these products is adding to the chronic chemical exposures that plausibly contribute to the increasing global burden of non-communicable diseases. In the context of ongoing negotiations for a legally binding global treaty to end plastics pollution, and rapidly growing concern about the burgeoning share of UPFs in diets worldwide, we ask: What steps are needed to call time on this toxic relationship?

BACKGROUND:Over 1800 food contact chemicals (FCCs) are known to migrate from food contact articles used to store, process, package, and serve foodstuffs. Many of these FCCs have hazard properties of concern, and still others have never been tested for toxicity. Humans are known to be exposed to FCCs via foods, but the full extent of human exposure to all FCCs is unknown. OBJECTIVE:To close this important knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic overview of FCCs that have been monitored and detected in human biomonitoring studies according to a previously published protocol. METHODS:We first compared the more than 14,000 known FCCs to five biomonitoring programs and three metabolome/exposome databases. In a second step, we prioritized FCCs that have been frequently detected in food contact materials and systematically mapped the available evidence for their presence in humans. RESULTS:For 25% of the known FCCs (3601), we found evidence for their presence in humans. This includes 194 FCCs from human biomonitoring programs, with 80 of these having hazard properties of high concern. Of the 3528 FCCs included in metabolome/exposome databases, most are from the Blood Exposome Database. We found evidence for the presence in humans for 63 of the 175 prioritized FCCs included in the systematic evidence map, and 59 of the prioritized FCCs lack hazard data. SIGNIFICANCE:Notwithstanding that there are also other sources of exposure for many FCCs, these data will help to prioritize FCCs of concern by linking information on migration and biomonitoring. Our results on FCCs monitored in humans are available as an interactive dashboard (FCChumon) to enable policymakers, public health researchers, and food industry decision-makers to make food contact materials and articles safer, reduce human exposure to hazardous FCCs and improve public health. IMPACT STATEMENT:We present systematically compiled evidence on human exposure to 3601 food contact chemicals (FCCs) and highlight FCCs that are of concern because of their known hazard properties. Further, we identify relevant data gaps for FCCs found in food contact materials and foods. This article improves the understanding of food contact materials' contribution to chemical exposure for the human population and highlights opportunities for improving public health.

Food contact materials (FCMs) and food contact articles are ubiquitous in today's globalized food system. Chemicals migrate from FCMs into foodstuffs, so called food contact chemicals (FCCs), but current regulatory requirements do not sufficiently protect public health from hazardous FCCs because only individual substances used to make FCMs are tested and mostly only for genotoxicity while endocrine disruption and other hazard properties are disregarded. Indeed, FCMs are a known source of a wide range of hazardous chemicals, and they likely contribute to highly prevalent non-communicable diseases. FCMs can also include non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), which often are unknown and therefore not subject to risk assessment. To address these important shortcomings, we outline how the safety of FCMs may be improved by (1) testing the overall migrate, including (unknown) NIAS, of finished food contact articles, and (2) expanding toxicological testing beyond genotoxicity to multiple endpoints associated with non-communicable diseases relevant to human health. To identify mechanistic endpoints for testing, we group chronic health outcomes associated with chemical exposure into Six Clusters of Disease (SCOD) and we propose that finished food contact articles should be tested for their impacts on these SCOD. Research should focus on developing robust, relevant, and sensitive in-vitro assays based on mechanistic information linked to the SCOD, e.g., through Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) or Key Characteristics of Toxicants. Implementing this vision will improve prevention of chronic diseases that are associated with hazardous chemical exposures, including from FCMs.

Manufacturers of chemicals added to food are responsible for determining that the use of their products is safe. There are two major legal definitions of chemicals in food: (1) food additives which includes ingredients and chemicals indirectly entering food from packaging and processing equipment, and (2) generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances mostly used as ingredients. The law requires food additives to undergo approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they are sold, but it GRAS substances are exempted from pre-market approval. In 1997, FDA created a voluntary program for manufacturers to submit their chemical's safety determination in the form of a GRAS notice to the agency. Manufacturers make GRAS determinations regardless of whether they voluntarily submit a notice to FDA for review. They rely on their own employees, the employee of a hired consulting firm or a panel of experts, known as GRAS panel, to review the safety information. Because this process determines whether a chemical is safe for use in food, conflicts of interest and biases need to be avoided or minimized to credibly ensure food is safe. Recently, FDA has published guidance for industry on best practices to convene GRAS panels to manage conflicts of interest and reduce biases that have plagued the process. Here, we perform a qualitative assessment of the compliance of GRAS panels with basic elements of FDA's guidance. We assessed 403 GRAS notices filed by FDA between 2015 and 2020 and identified whether a GRAS panel was convened and by whom, its members, affiliations, and relationships between panelists and panel conveners. Then, we compared FDA's recommendations against the information included in the notices voluntarily submitted by manufacturers. We found no evidence that GRAS panels have adhered to FDA's guidance. Panels are populated from a very small pool of professionals; we found that seven panel members alone occupied almost half of all available panel positions and that they often serve together. Against guidance recommendations, ad-hoc panels have been substituted by panels with recurring members in hired consulting firms' payroll. The widespread persistence of conflicts of interest, appearance of conflict and bias in GRAS determinations continue to put the health of Americans at risk and undermine confidence in the safety of food ingredients in the US market. FDA should require notice for all GRAS determinations including how the financial conflicts of interest of those who make these determinations are minimized.

Background Hazard identification, risk assessment, regulatory, and policy activity are usually conducted on a chemical-by-chemical basis. Grouping chemicals into categories or classes is an underutilized approach that could make risk assessment and management of chemicals more efficient for regulators. Objective and methods While there are some available methods and regulatory frameworks that include the grouping of chemicals (e.g.,same molecular mechanism or similar chemical structure) there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of these different approaches nor a recommended course of action to better consider chemical classes in decision-making. This manuscript: 1) reviews current national and international approaches to grouping; 2) describes how groups could be defined based on the decision context (e.g., hazard/risk assessment, restrictions, prioritization, product development) and scientific considerations (e.g., intrinsic physical-chemical properties); 3) discusses advantages of developing a decision tree approach for grouping; 4) uses ortho-phthalates as a case study to identify and organize frameworks that could be used across agencies; and 5) discusses opportunities to advance the class concept within various regulatory decision-making scenarios. Results Structural similarity was the most common grouping approach for risk assessment among regulatory agencies (national and state level) and non-regulatory organizations, albeit with some variations in its definition. Toxicity to the same target organ or to the same biological function was also used in a few cases. The phthalates case study showed that a decision tree approach for grouping should include questions about uses regulated by other agencies to encourage more efficient, coherent, and protective chemical risk management. Discussion and conclusion Our evaluation of how classes of chemicals are defined and used identified commonalities and differences based on regulatory frameworks, risk assessments, and business strategies. We also identified that using a class-based approach could result in a more efficient process to reduce exposures to multiple hazardous chemicals and, ultimately, reduce health risks. We concluded that, in the absence of a prescribed method, a decision tree approach could facilitate the selection of chemicals belonging to a pre-defined class (e.g., chemicals with endocrine-disrupting activity; organohalogen flame retardants [OFR]) based on the decision-making context (e.g., regulatory risk management).

Food packaging is important for today’s globalized food system, but food contact materials (FCMs) can also be a source of hazardous chemicals migrating into foodstuffs. Assessing the impacts of FCMs on human health requires a comprehensive identification of the chemicals they contain, the food contact chemicals (FCCs). We systematically compiled the “database on migrating and extractable food contact chemicals” (FCCmigex) using information from 1210 studies. We found that to date 2881 FCCs have been detected, in a total of six FCM groups (Plastics, Paper & Board, Metal, Multi-materials, Glass & Ceramic, and Other FCMs). 65% of these detected FCCs were previously not known to be used in FCMs. Conversely, of the more than 12’000 FCCs known to be used, only 1013 are included in the FCCmigex database. Plastic is the most studied FCM with 1975 FCCs detected. Our findings expand the universe of known FCCs to 14,153 chemicals. This knowledge contributes to developing non-hazardous FCMs that lead to safer food and support a circular economy.

The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a “safe” or “no-risk” level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection.

Regulators have established safety requirements for food packaging raw materials and finished products, including by-products of polymer synthesis known as non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). However, there are no official guidance or regulations for best practices to evaluate the safety of NIAS. Here we described the process we followed to identify, characterize, and prioritize for safety assessment low molecular weight NIAS from an epoxy coating (V70) made with tetramethyl bisphenol F-based diglycidyl ether resin (TMBPF-DGE). We assembled a database of 15000 potential oligomers with masses up to 1000 Da and conducted extraction and migration testing of V70 coating. Acetonitrile extract contained higher number and concentration of substances compared to ethanolic-based food simulants. The extract contained 16 substances with matches in the database with estimated concentration of 18.27 μg/6 dm2; seven of these substances have potentially genotoxic oxirane functionality. TMBPF-DGE + hydroquinone (TMBPF-DGE + HQ) was most abundant (55% of total concentration) and was synthesized and prioritized for safety assessment. TMBPF-DGE + HQ exposure from can beverage was estimated at 5.2 μg/person/day, and it was not mutagenic or genotoxic in in vitro assays. The overall mixture of substances that migrated into ethanolic simulant was also negative in the mutagenicity bioassay. Our findings suggest that exposure to TMBPF-DGE + HQ from the V70 coating is exceedingly small and that the coating migrates are not genotoxic.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are substances generated by human industrial activities that are detrimental to human health through their effects on the endocrine system. The global societal and economic burden posed by EDCs is substantial. Poorly defined or unenforced policies can increase human exposure to EDCs, thereby contributing to human disease, disability and economic damage. Researchers have shown that policies and interventions implemented at both individual and government levels have the potential to reduce exposure to EDCs. This Review describes a set of evidence-based policy actions to manage, minimize or even eliminate the widespread use of these chemicals and better protect human health and society. A number of specific challenges exist: defining, identifying and prioritizing EDCs; considering the non-linear or non-monotonic properties of EDCs; accounting for EDC exposure effects that are latent and do not appear until later in life; and updating testing paradigms to reflect ‘real-world’ mixtures of chemicals and cumulative exposure. A sound strategy also requires partnering with health-care providers to integrate strategies to prevent EDC exposure in clinical care. Critical next steps include addressing EDCs within global policy frameworks by integrating EDC exposure prevention into emerging climate policy.

Human exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) may increase risk for chronic disease. Diet is a significant source of EDC exposure, yet healthy diets recommended for chronic disease prevention have not been thoroughly examined for associations with EDC exposure. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2016, we examined associations of dietary patterns with exposure to non-persistent EDCs potentially consumed through diet. EDCs were measured in spot urine samples. Diet was assessed using 24-h recalls. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine associations of three healthy diet scores [Healthy Eating Index (HEI), relative Mediterranean Diet (rMED), and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] and fast-food consumption with EDCs. In fully adjusted models, no diet was associated with exposure to the bisphenols, phthalates, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons examined. A 1-point increase in rMED (of 18 possible points) was associated with 2.7% (95% CI: 1.7%, 3.8%) greater urinary nitrate. A 10-point increase in HEI (of 100 possible points) was associated with 5.3% (95% CI: 2.8%, 7.9%) greater nitrate and 6.8% (95% CI: 4.5%, 9.2%) greater perchlorate. Because perchlorate and nitrate can disrupt thyroid hormone production, we conducted an exploratory analysis to examine whether these chemicals mediate an association between diet and thyroid hormones. A 10-point increase in HEI was associated with 0.6% reduced serum total thyroxine (95% CI: 1.7%, 0.5%) among all adults, with 57.5% of the effect explained by perchlorate. Nitrate mediated an association of rMED with modestly reduced total triiodothyronine among females. Most EDCs examined had no association with the diets evaluated, indicating that recommended healthy diets were not protective against EDC exposures. As observed with two thyroid antagonists, some recommended diets may increase EDC exposures and related adverse health outcomes. Additional work should identify effective food production and processing practices to reduce dietary exposures to potentially harmful EDCs.

It has been 25 years since the U.S. Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, an amendment to the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandated that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) test all pesticide chemicals used in food for endocrine disruption. Soon after the law passed, EPA established the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) to provide recommendations to the agency on how its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) should work. Among them, the committee recommended that EDSP screening should 1) evaluate both human and ecological effects; 2) test for disruption of the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid systems; 3) evaluate pesticide and non-pesticide chemicals; and 4) implement a tiered approach. EPA adopted the recommendations and the EDSP was created in 1998. To date, the EPA has yet to fully implement the law; in other words, it has failed to test all pesticide chemicals for endocrine disruption. Of the small number that have been tested, not a single pesticide chemical has been determined to be an endocrine disruptor, and no regulatory actions have been taken. Here, we review the missed opportunities EPA had to make the EDSP a functional and effective program aimed at protecting human health and the environment. Two reports by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General from 2011 to 2021 provide the framework for our discussion.

Chemicals can migrate from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) drink bottles to their content and recycling processes may concentrate or introduce new chemicals to the PET value chain. Therefore, even though recycling PET bottles is key in reducing plastic pollution, it may raise concerns about safety and quality. This study provides a systematic evidence map of the food contact chemicals (FCCs) that migrate from PET drink bottles aiming to identify challenges in closing the plastic packaging loop. The migration potential of 193 FCCs has been investigated across the PET drink bottles lifecycle, of which 150 have been detected to migrate from PET bottles into food simulants/food samples. The study reveals that much research has focused on the migration of antimony (Sb), acetaldehyde and some well-known endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). It indicates and discusses the key influential factors on FCCs migration, such as physical characteristics and geographical origin of PET bottles, storage conditions, and reprocessing efficiency . Although, safety and quality implications arising from the recycling of PET bottles remain underexplored, the higher migration of Sb and Bishphenol A has been reported in recycled (rPET) compared to virgin PET. This is attributed to multiple contamination sources and the variability in the collection, sorting, and decontamination efficiency. Better collaboration among stakeholders across the entire PET bottles lifecycle is needed to ensure sustainable resource management and food contact safety of rPET.

Background The association between environmental chemical exposures and chronic diseases is of increasing concern. Chemical risk assessment relies heavily on pre-market toxicity testing to identify safe levels of exposure, often known as reference doses (RfD), expected to be protective of human health. Although some RfDs have been reassessed in light of new hazard information, it is not a common practice. Continuous surveillance of animal and human data, both in terms of exposures and associated health outcomes, could provide valuable information to risk assessors and regulators. Using ortho-phthalates as case study, we asked whether RfDs deduced from male reproductive toxicity studies and set by traditional regulatory toxicology approaches sufficiently protect the population for other health outcomes. Methods We searched for epidemiological studies on benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Data were extracted from studies where any of the five chemicals or their metabolites were measured and showed a statistically significant association with a health outcome; 38 studies met the criteria. We estimated intake for each phthalate from urinary metabolite concentration and compared estimated intake ranges associated with health endpoints to each phthalate’s RfD. Result For DBP, DIBP, and BBP, the estimated intake ranges significantly associated with health endpoints were all below their individual RfDs. For DEHP, the intake range included associations at levels both below and above its RfD. For DCHP, no relevant studies could be identified. The significantly affected endpoints revealed by our analysis include metabolic, neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders, obesity, and changes in hormone levels. Most of these conditions are not routinely evaluated in animal testing employed in regulatory toxicology. Conclusion We conclude that for DBP, DIBP, BBP, and DEHP current RfDs estimated based on male reproductive toxicity may not be sufficiently protective of other health effects. Thus, a new approach is needed where post-market exposures, epidemiological and clinical data are systematically reviewed to ensure adequate health protection.

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVCorrespondenceNEXTResponse to "Comment on Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class"Carol F. Kwiatkowski*Carol F. KwiatkowskiDepartment of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United StatesGreen Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States*Email: [email protected]More by Carol F. Kwiatkowskihttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-1218, David Q. AndrewsDavid Q. AndrewsEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C. 20009, United StatesMore by David Q. Andrews, Linda S. BirnbaumLinda S. BirnbaumNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NIEHS and U.S. Public Health Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, United StatesMore by Linda S. Birnbaum, Thomas A. BrutonThomas A. BrutonGreen Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United StatesMore by Thomas A. Bruton, Jamie C. DeWittJamie C. DeWittDepartment of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 27834, United StatesMore by Jamie C. DeWitt, Detlef R.U. KnappeDetlef R.U. KnappeDepartment of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United StatesMore by Detlef R.U. Knappehttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-1315-1791, Maricel V. MaffiniMaricel V. MaffiniPrivate Residence, Frederick, Maryland 21701, United StatesMore by Maricel V. Maffinihttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-9461, Mark F. MillerMark F. MillerNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NIEHS and U.S. Public Health Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, United StatesMore by Mark F. Miller, Katherine E. PelchKatherine E. PelchSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas 76126, United StatesMore by Katherine E. Pelch, Anna ReadeAnna ReadeNatural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California 94104, United StatesMore by Anna Reade, Anna SoehlAnna SoehlGreen Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United StatesMore by Anna Soehl, Xenia TrierXenia TrierEuropean Environment Agency, DK-1050 Copenhagen, DenmarkMore by Xenia Trier, Marta VenierMarta VenierO'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47401, United StatesMore by Marta Venierhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2089-8992, Charlotte C. WagnerCharlotte C. WagnerHarvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, United StatesMore by Charlotte C. Wagner, Zhanyun WangZhanyun WangChair of Ecological Systems Design, Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zürich, 8093 Zurich, SwitzerlandMore by Zhanyun Wang, and Arlene BlumArlene BlumGreen Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United StatesDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, United StatesMore by Arlene BlumCite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2021, 8, 2, 195–197Publication Date (Web):February 1, 2021Publication History Received20 January 2021Accepted21 January 2021Published online2 February 2021Published inissue 9 February 2021https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00049https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00049article-commentaryACS PublicationsCopyright © 2021 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use. Request reuse permissions This publication is free to access through this site. Learn MoreArticle Views4612Altmetric-Citations6LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail PDF (641 KB) Get e-AlertscloseSUBJECTS:Air pollution,Contamination,Organic compounds,Precursors,Toxins Get e-Alerts

This commentary presents a scientific basis for managing as one chemical class the thousands of chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The class includes perfluoroalkyl acids, perfluoroalkylether acids, and their precursors; fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers; and other PFAS. The basis for the class approach is presented in relation to their physicochemical, environmental, and toxicological properties. Specifically, the high persistence, accumulation potential, and/or hazards (known and potential) of PFAS studied to date warrant treating all PFAS as a single class. Examples are provided of how some PFAS are being regulated and how some businesses are avoiding all PFAS in their products and purchasing decisions. We conclude with options for how governments and industry can apply the class-based approach, emphasizing the importance of eliminating non-essential uses of PFAS, and further developing safer alternatives and methods to remove existing PFAS from the environment.