A prioritization strategy for functional alternatives to bisphenol A in food contact materials

Annick D. van den BrandEllen V.S. HesselRinus RijkBianca van de VenNiels M. LeijtenEmiel RorijeShalenie P. den Braver-Sewradja Centre for Health Protection,National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM),Bilthoven,The Netherlandsb AdFoPack,Nieuwegein,The Netherlandsc Centre for Prevention,Lifestyle and Health,National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM),Bilthoven,The Netherlandsd Centre for Safety of Substances and Products,National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM),Bilthoven,The Netherlands
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2341020
2024-05-10
Critical Reviews in Toxicology
Abstract:The use of bisphenol A (BPA), a substance of very high concern, is proposed to be banned in food contact materials (FCMs) in the European Union. To prevent regrettable substitution of BPA by alternatives with similar or unknown hazardous properties, it is of importance to gain the relevant toxicological information on potential BPA alternative substances and monitor them adequately. We created an inventory of over 300 substances mentioned as potential BPA alternatives in regulatory reports and scientific literature. This study presents a prioritization strategy to identify substances that may be used as an alternative to BPA in FCMs. We prioritized 20 potential BPA alternatives of which 10 are less familiar. We subsequently reviewed the available information on the 10 prioritized less familiar substances regarding hazard profiles and migration potential obtained from scientific literature and in silico screening tools to identify a possible risk of the substances. Major data gaps regarding the hazard profiles of the prioritized substances exist, although the scarce available data give some indications on the possible hazard for some of the substances (like bisphenol TMC, 4,4-dihydroxybenzophenone, and tetrachlorobisphenol A). In addition, very little is known about the actual use and exposure to these substances. More toxicological research and monitoring of these substances in FCMs are, therefore, required to avoid regrettable substitution of BPA in FCM.
toxicology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the selection of alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) in food contact materials (FCMs). Specifically, the paper focuses on how to avoid the "regrettable substitution" phenomenon that occurs when BPA is banned, that is, BPA is replaced by other substances with similar or unknown hazard characteristics. To achieve this goal, the researchers created a list of more than 300 potential BPA - substituting substances and proposed a prioritization strategy to identify substances that could be used as BPA substitutes. Through this method, they prioritized 20 potential BPA substitutes, 10 of which are less well - known. Subsequently, the researchers conducted further toxicological evaluations and migration potential analyses on these 10 substances to determine the risks that these substances may pose. The study points out that for these priority substances, especially in terms of their hazard characteristics and actual use and exposure situations, there are a large number of data gaps, and more toxicological research and monitoring are required to avoid the regrettable substitution of BPA in FCMs.