From plastic to people

Plastics containing EDCs are used in an array of different products and industries, including packaging, construction, cookware, children’s toys, electronics, cosmetics, cars, food production, textiles, and furniture. EDCs make the journey from plastic to people in many ways. In the case of food and beverage packaging — whether single use or reusable — EDCs leach into the food and drink we consume, and are absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. We can also inhale them by breathing contaminated air, and absorb them through direct contact by, say, using a plastic pen or a child putting a plastic toy in their mouth. 

A 2022 study by the EPA discovered that fluorinated HDPE bottles can leach PFAS into the water they carry, and the longer the storage time, the higher the concentration in the leachate. As well as time, other factors which increase chemical migration in the case of food and beverage packaging include higher temperatures (caused by microwaving food, for instance); smaller packaging, which has a higher surface-to-volume ratio; and fatty and acidic foods, such as cheese. 

Dr Terry Collins, Chemistry Director at the Institute for Green Science, explains that many endocrine disruptors are very stable. Once we have consumed them and released them back into the environment, they can survive water treatment plants and will head straight back into our food, water, and agriculture cycle.

The manufacture of EDCs opens further routes of exposure. Scientific research into the PFOA contamination of drinking water across two states near a DuPont facility in 2009 – ordered by a federal judge – found a "probable link" between PFOA and kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, preeclampsia, high cholesterol, and ulcerative colitis. Since the onset of the legal case, which impacted 70,000 people, DuPont phased out production of PFAO. According to the Environmental Working Group, "legacy" PFAS in Americans’ blood has dropped but is still present. In fact, PFAS is in the blood of 99.7% of Americans. EDCs stick around.

The evidence speaks for itself

There have been many (tens of thousands, according to Collins) controlled studies into EDCs that were carried out on animals kept in the same conditions and treated in exactly the same manner. However, investigations into human health entail studying people under uncontrolled circumstances — using data from men and women who live in different areas, work different jobs, eat different foods, and live different lifestyles. This leaves room for chemicals and plastic manufacturers to shed doubt on the results, but the available evidence is compelling.

"The most shocking effect is that we’re going sterile at a dizzying rate," says Collins. "From 1973 to 2011, we lost more than 50% of mean sperm count. We’re losing a bit over 1% per year in the West. If you project the line out to the 2040s, the mean sperm count is asymptotically zero."

To maintain a population, the birth rate should stay at around 2.1, but as Collins explains, every birth rate in Europe is below this —  and places producing modern goods such as cars and TV sets which are "awash with endocrine disruptors" fare worst. In Singapore the birth rate is around 1.0, in Korea it is 0.8. In certain cities in China, sperm count is falling by 10% per year, Collins says.

Within the female population, Collins says we’re experiencing an "explosion of endometriosis and PCOD". Other charted health impacts include increased risks of cancer and metabolic disorders, early onset of menopause, and reduced levels of testosterone. We're even seeing changes to the size and shape of genitalia. Exposure to EDCs is estimated to cost between EUR 150-260 billion (USD 161-280 billion) annually in the EU.

Tackling EDCs

Global sales of chemicals were EUR 3,347 billion (USD 3,599 billion) in 2018. The chemical industry is huge, and like any huge industry, making progress is difficult — hence why we’re still talking about tackling the problem of endocrine disruption when we’ve known about it since 1991. In January 2011, the European Commission prohibited the use of BPA in the manufacture of infant feeding bottles, and in 2018 the EU introduced stricter rules regarding its use in food contact materials. Many chemical regulations are based around what is considered to be a 'safe level' within a product or material, but BPA can mimic the action of hormones at very low levels — imagine a single drop in an Olympic swimming pool — meaning there is no such thing as a workable 'safe level' within a commercial context. The 'safe level' would be so low it would, for all intents and purposes, act as a ban.

In addition to fighting to limit, or ban, cheap and efficient products made by a billion-dollar industry, there is another issue: you can’t regulate what you don’t know. "Even the people who make the plastic don’t know what all the chemicals in there are. Assessing whether a chemical is a health risk or not involves knowing what the chemical actually is," says Muncke. Unknown chemicals in the source material, chemicals created via reactions during manufacture and use, and chemicals carried across into new materials and products via plastic recycling cannot be assessed, regulated, and reduced. Solving the puzzle of making safer plastic starts with knowing what's in it.

While Muncke tackles initial exposure routes, Collins is working on removing endocrine disruptors (and other micropollutants) from the effluent of water streams. His research started in 1980, with a view to mimicking nature's response to pathogens: "attacking them with oxygen-based chemistry". Via his academic research, and his company Sudoc, Collins has developed and patented a group of catalysts called "TAML Activators" (and, more recently, "New TAMLs") comprised of elements found in the human body. When combined with hydrogen peroxide, TAMLs can break down harmful chemicals — including EDCs — in water within minutes. Once their job is done, they disappear, breaking back down into their natural elements. Just as plastics are exposure routes for EDCs, so too is water. We can be exposed to the EDCs within water via ingestion, inhalation, and physical contact. Most of us are likely exposed to EDCs far above the safety limit every day, so multiple approaches – from regulation to clean up – are necessary to tackle EDCs both at source and within the environment.

What can I do?

Of course, we’re not all regulators, green chemists, or heads of major scientific organisations. We don’t have transformative catalysts or panels of scientists at our disposal, but that’s not to say we can't do anything. First, consider the routes of exposure. Are you packaging fatty foods which expedite chemical leaching? Will your container be heated? Is a child using your product? Is your product intended for long-term food or beverage storage? Does your product have a high surface to volume ratio? If the answer is yes to any of these, then plastic packaging cannot be the answer. 

Next, expand your knowledge. The Food Packaging Forum’s UP Scorecard provides an overview and comparison of the levels of chemicals of concern within certain food contact products, helping to build an awareness of the chemical impact of different materials, where we’re often usually focused on environmental and social impacts. The Food Packaging Forum also links to a range of sources offering practical advice for reducing chemical exposure, and the Environmental Working Group has published a 'dirty dozen' of endocrine disruptors. If you consider the point of view of the individual trying to avoid EDCs, you begin to design with new priorities in mind. 

It may seem many of the design conundrums cannot be solved, that certain products must simply be made of, or packaged in, plastic. But there are numerous examples of alternatives that cut it out altogether to draw from. Fortnum and Mason sells a variety of cheeses, from stilton to Welsh Rarebit, in ceramic jars; Oquist creates terracotta beauty packaging; Gnarly Nutrition made the switch from plastic tubs to Steel cans for its supplements in 2021; and Coldsnap offers on-demand ice cream in an Aluminium can. Plastic may be the default, but it is by no means the only option. 

Crucially, it’s vital to look at EDCs within plastics not simply as a materials challenge but a systems challenge too. A circular business model could allow for refillable options in inert materials such as Glass or ceramic, rather than individually plastic-packaged, single-use items. Look at Pieter Pot, which provides next day delivery of groceries in glass containers as inspiration, or even the traditional milk delivery model. Equally, many locally sourced, locally sold products could forgo packaging altogether. Imagine collecting your Haeckels Grown to Order eye mask from your local store in your own container, or buying loose, locally grown produce at your local Infarm.

Innovative design and system change must go hand in hand if we hope to tackle the root cause of the EDC issue which is so endemic to plastic use. And they are actions within our grasp. "We have to radically reshape the chemical economy, and that means radically reshaping the products that we take for granted," says Collins.