Food packaging chemicals are still evaluated individually by regulators, but new research suggests that approach leaves consumers exposed to avoidable risks. A peer-reviewed study published September 1 in Environmental Science & Technology recommends a more efficient system: grouping substances according to their molecular structures so potential hazards can be identified even when comprehensive safety evidence is unavailable.
Led by researchers from the Food Packaging Forum, the study comes as regulators and businesses face increasing scrutiny of more than 15,000 chemicals used in food contact materials, including packaging, processing equipment, and kitchenware. Around 87% of these substances do not have enough safety information to assess their possible effects on human health. The findings are therefore relevant across food and beverage industry trends, food manufacturing trends, and the wider development of food processing technology.
A regulatory model struggling to keep pace
According to the researchers, the substance-by-substance model used in Europe and North America cannot effectively manage today’s extensive chemical landscape. Authorities have identified 1,222 of the more than 15,000 substances as priority chemicals that may threaten human health. However, publicly available information remains limited or nonexistent for over 13,000 others.
The research team addressed this information gap by organizing chemicals with comparable structural characteristics into groups. Because compounds with similar structures can exhibit related hazard profiles, this approach provides a way to identify possible risks before complete testing is available. The analysis produced 38 priority groups containing an unusually large share of recognized hazardous substances, including ortho-phthalates, PFASs, organophosphates, isocyanates, and primary aromatic amines.
Why chemical substitution can create new risks
The results offer an important caution for manufacturers replacing restricted or legacy substances. A total of 4,222 food contact chemicals belong to the 38 priority groups. This means that numerous chemicals currently in commercial use resemble substances already associated with health concerns and could become “regrettable substitutes” when adopted as replacements.
“Replacing known hazardous chemicals with very similar but insufficiently tested alternatives is not solving the problem,” said Helene Wiesinger, lead author of the study. She explained that the grouping system can help regulators and companies identify chemicals of concern more quickly, supporting faster and better-informed decisions.
Co-author Jane Muncke also highlighted the limitations of current oversight. “Today’s regulatory approaches in Europe and North America look at each chemical individually, but this is inefficient and does not sufficiently protect consumers. We are proposing an evidence-based grouping approach decision makers can already use now until the proper testing methods and testing data become available.”
Open-access resources support faster screening
The researchers have paired their findings with two free resources designed for practical use. The updated FCCprio List ranks known hazardous chemicals used in food contact applications, while FCCgroup allows users to compare their own chemical inventories with the 38 identified priority groups through an interactive platform.
Albert Anguera Sempere, a co-author of the study, said the platform offers value for both public health and commercial risk management. He described FCCgroup as a fast, accessible way for organizations to review chemical portfolios and identify substances that may present hazards. Early screening could help businesses prepare for future restrictions, reduce litigation exposure, and strengthen consumer protection.
Regulators in the European Union and United States are already considering changes to food contact material oversight. As a result, structure-based screening could influence decisions involving food and drink regulations, food and drink packaging, and responsible food and drink sustainability strategies. Companies that replace a restricted substance with a “similar” alternative without checking its position within the 38 groups may simply exchange one compliance risk for another. The new tools give manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors an opportunity to assess those risks before making costly commitments—an increasingly important consideration for food distribution trends, food and drink industry innovation, food and drink marketing, and evolving food and drink consumer trends.