Nutri-Score or Not? A European Union Analysis and Global Overview
By Gul Basak Kiroglu, Regulatory Trends Product Manager
After the Italian prime minister was elected in 2022, one of her first public speeches promised to abolish Nutri-Score in Italy. In the past few years, it seems that everything about food, from its packaging to additives, has a political element. Front-of-pack information is no exception.
Nutri-Score is a nutritional front-of-pack rating system based on five colors launched in 2017 by the French government.
The calculation process for Nutri-Score is built on a concept developed by the UK Food Standards Agency known as “model WXYfm.” The model, developed in 2005 by Professor Mike Rayner, is a calculation algorithm based on the nutritional contents of the food.
Following Nutri-Score’s launch, several countries decided to recommend the label: Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. However, it is not a surprising that some European Union (EU) member states with traditional gastronomic products such as cheese, cold cuts/processed meats or olive oils like Italy and Poland took negative views of the labeling. Nutri-Score has also negatively impacted fruit juice by classifying it in the same category as sodas within sugar-sweetened beverages. Many manufacturers have started to advocate for an evolution of the Nutri-Score to better reflect the benefits of fruit juices, by integrating more nuanced criteria.
In fact, the “battery-based” nutritional labeling system NutrInform (or NutrInform Battery) has been proposed in Italy as an alternative to the “traffic light” system Nutri-Score.
The NutrInform Battery was proposed to evaluate not individual foods, but rather their incidence within the diet. For this reason, it is a system that provides, in a single diagram, the amount of energy, saturated fats, sugars and salt for a portion of food and their relative percentage in relation to the average reference intakes (AR) recommended for an adult.
While the World Health Organization has determined that a clearly understandable food choice logo is an important tool in the fight for health and that Nutri-Score meets all requirements, that conclusion is contradicted by multiple nutrition specialists in Poland. Other experts note that the system contradicts current EU policy focused on healthy diets based on traditional, basic products coming from local crops or farming.
In France, a new and more restricted version of the Nutri-Score nutritional label, criticized last week by the Minister of Agriculture, will come into force with the signing by the relevant ministries of the decree organizing its implementation, the government announced on March 14 this year.
In the meantime, after years of trying to roll out a mandatory Nutri-Score system across all 27 EU member states, the Commission proposal was expected in 2023. However, it was mentioned neither in the Commission work program for 2024 nor in the tentative agenda for forthcoming Commission meetings. It remains uncertain when this proposal will be tabled.
Other countries where similar approaches are adopted:
By Matt Parker, Food Contact Subject Matter Expert
For expert-guided services and technology to help brands and manufacturers meet market demands for sustainable packaging, FoodChain ID is ready to help.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a system in which companies responsible for placing products on the market pay fees to help pay for the end-of-life management of the product packaging. Multiple U.S. states have implemented EPR programs, and deadlines for complying with these programs are rapidly approaching. Oregon is the first state with an active program, with a requirement for companies to report the pounds of the covered products sold in the state, by material type, by March 31. The reporting values will cover materials sold by the company in the prior calendar year. Colorado and California follow, with reporting deadlines of July 31 and August 31, respectively.
As expected, not all EPR programs are the same. Each state has its own list of what they define as “covered materials.” For instance, covered materials in Oregon include most primary, secondary and tertiary packaging, excluding returnable pallets, if they are disposed of in the state. Whereas Colorado does not include secondary and tertiary packaging in business-to-business applications. Only packaging sold to, and disposed of by, the consumer is considered a covered material under the Colorado system. Other states with EPR programs coming online in the near future include Maine, Maryland and Minnesota. The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the Producer Responsibility Organization chosen by most of the states. The CAA is responsible for running the program, sending out invoices and collecting the fees.
In December 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized a rule that updated the nutritional requirements a food must meet to use the term “healthy on its packaging. The rule was published with an effective date of February 25, 2025. In January, President Trump issued a memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which freezes new rules until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President reviews and approves the rule. The freeze also directs agencies to postpone the effective date for any new rules that were published in the Federal Register but have not yet taken effect for the purpose of review.
The recent action means that the FDA definition for “healthy” will be delayed until April 28, 2025. Among other requirements, the final rule identifies limits on added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium for foods that are labeled as healthy. Some foods such as flavored yogurts and sweetened cereals that previously carried the healthy label will no longer qualify for this claim under the new definition. The current understanding of this definition could evolve further with the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The “healthy” claim was last defined in the 1990s, and it was focused solely on nutrients based on the science available at that time. The current awareness of dietary patterns and concerns about added sugar, fat, and sodium will help inform the new definition.
About the Author
Julie Holt is a subject matter expert in the areas of food and beverage, additives and regulatory strategy. Ms. Holt’s expertise includes the beverage industry, with current consulting support across multiple beverage categories.
Holt has more than 25+ years of regulatory experience in the food and food ingredients industries and managed her own advisory firm, Scientific & Regulatory Solutions LLC, prior to joining FoodChain ID. As a consultant, she supported several food and beverage clients including a Fortune 50 company. Holt has provided global regulatory knowledge covering more than 200 countries. Her consulting efforts have supported global regulatory needs, R&D projects, sustainability goals and innovation initiatives.
Earlier this month, Dr. Vivek Murthy, the United States Surgeon General, released an advisory report warning that alcohol consumption can cause cancer. The report cites a growing number of studies pointing to the harmful effects of drinking alcohol. Cancer from alcohol is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the U.S. after tobacco and obesity, but surveys show less than half of Americans recognize it as a risk factor. The report describes research linking alcohol to an increased risk of seven cancers: breast, colorectal, esophageal, liver, mouth, throat and larynx. The risk increases the more a person drinks with the risk for certain cancers like breast and throat rising with as few as one or fewer drinks per day.
Murthy recommended updated warning labels on alcoholic beverage packaging to raise consumer awareness of alcohol’s link to cancer. Current warning labels instruct consumers to avoid drinking alcohol when pregnant and not to operate heavy machinery when drinking. These labels have not been updated since 1988 and do not reflect the cancer concerns. A new warning label would require Congressional approval. Some experts believe that warning labels could be useful in raising awareness about the negative health effects of consuming alcohol as part of a comprehensive approach to alcohol harm reduction. Many Americans are confused as to whether an occasional drink, especially red wine, is good for them or bad for them.
Alcohol is known to cause cancer in four ways, one of which is its metabolism into acetaldehyde, which damages DNA. Alcohol consumption also creates unstable molecules and depletes nutrients such as B vitamins and folate that may help protect the body against cancer. While alcohol increases cancer risk for both sexes, the risk is higher for women. Body size and body fat are factors that work against women when it comes to alcohol-related cancers. The surgeon general’s report calls for guideline limits for alcohol to be assessed to account for cancer risk and seeks to raise awareness among consumers as they decide whether or how much to drink.
Currently it is estimated that about 70% of Americans consume alcohol at least once a week. Adding a cancer warning would highlight a severe health concern with these products and certainly impact the alcoholic beverage industry. According to various sources, the United States alcoholic beverage market was valued at around $415 billion in 2024. Other countries are also examining the linkages between alcohol consumption and cancer, with Ireland requiring a cancer advisory label starting in 2026.
About the Author
Julie Holt is a subject matter expert in the areas of food and beverage, additives and regulatory strategy. Ms. Holt’s expertise includes the beverage industry, with current consulting support across multiple beverage categories.
Holt has more than 25+ years of regulatory experience in the food and food ingredients industries and managed her own advisory firm, Scientific & Regulatory Solutions LLC, prior to joining FoodChain ID. As a consultant, she supported several food and beverage clients including a Fortune 50 company. Holt has provided global regulatory knowledge covering more than 200 countries. Her consulting efforts have supported global regulatory needs, R&D projects, sustainability goals and innovation initiatives.
By Aslı Tuncer Madge, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant
Packaging is everywhere: protecting our products, our food, and even our fragile egos when that online order arrives safely. But have you ever thought about what happens to the packaging once it has served its purpose? Enter recycled materials, the unsung heroes in the sustainability narrative. In this blog post, we will explore how companies producing recycled packaging materials are making strides in sustainability, and why food companies should care—spoiler alert: it is more than just for show.
To stay informed on packaging sustainability, food contact materials and many other topics, subscribe to FoodChain ID’s monthly Reports & Digests.
The Recycling Revolution: Where Are We Now?
Recycled materials have taken center stage as global governments and industries recognize the need to reduce waste and carbon footprints. According to the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), the Netherlands has made headway in using recycled plastic for packaging, but there is still a long road ahead for achieving sustainability goals, particularly in meeting safety and quality standards for food contact materials.
Multilayer packaging, which is commonly used in food products, presents another challenge. Due to its complexity, the material is difficult to recycle. However, new solvent-based recycling methods are being explored to address the challenges, which could transform the industry. These methods break down multilayer plastics into their components, making recycling more feasible.
Why Should Food Companies Care?
Aside from the obvious sustainability benefits, switching to recycled materials can provide significant cost savings for companies. Recycling processes like chemical depolymerization are already showing promise in reducing the overall environmental footprint of packaging while allowing for greater reuse. The expansion of reusable packaging schemes such as Reposit in the UK signals an industry-wide shift towards long-term, reusable solutions.
Even more interesting, brands are starting to innovate in how they use recycled materials. For instance, KYSU recently launched a packaging line made entirely from recycled materials, which is making waves in the industry for its environmental benefits and its ability to compete with traditional packaging solutions on both cost and quality.
What About Safety?
The safety of recycled packaging, especially in food contact materials, has been a major concern for regulatory bodies. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) continues to evaluate the safety of recycled plastics intended for food packaging. Recent assessments have cleared specific processes for producing recycled plastics, but stricter regulations might be coming as research evolves.
Researchers have also started addressing the chemical contamination risks associated with recycled materials. Studies have found that careful selection and processing of recycled plastics can minimize contamination, making recycled materials safer for food packaging.
Innovation on the Horizon
From closed-loop systems to advanced sorting technologies, the recycling industry is rapidly evolving. Companies like UPM Specialty Papers are developing innovative solutions such as fiber-based materials that can easily replace single-use plastic in packaging. These developments not only reduce reliance on virgin materials but also offer a biodegradable alternative.
On a scientific front, new methods are being tested to improve the quality of recycled materials. For example, researchers are working on integrating AI and machine learning to sort and purify plastics, making the recycling process more efficient and reducing waste. A study on multilayer packaging suggests that with the right recycling technologies, we could soon be reusing more than 90% of our packaging waste.
The Future Is Green (and Recycled)
The takeaway for companies? Get on board with recycled materials if you want to stay competitive. As sustainability becomes a key consumer concern, embracing these innovations can give companies a valuable edge—not just in reducing their environmental impact, but also in aligning with future regulations and customer expectations.
Learn more about all of FoodChain ID’stechnology and expert-guided services to help brands and manufacturers meet market demands for sustainable packaging.
Part of FoodChain ID’s ‘It Begins with You’ Webinar Series
In 2023, there were 506 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food recalls. This is a five-year high for the food industry and 19.6% more events than those recorded in 2022. Undeclared allergens remained the leading cause of food recalls in every quarter of 2023 and continue to be the leading cause in 2024. How do we reduce the risk of a recall due to a miscue in a formulation or due to the packaging?
FoodChain ID Services and Solutions for the Food Industry
Regulatory Library: Global regulatory reference database providing instant access to current and historical regulations
Regulatory Assessment: Global regulatory reference tool that analyzes products or bills of materials for quick identification of compliance across 220+ countries
Regulatory Trends: Global regulatory and compliance search engine providing market intelligence on enforced regulations, drafts, proposals, scientific & trade journals and more
Recipes & Specifications Solution: A comprehensive solution for managing specifications, suppliers, recipes and labels, purpose-built for the food industry
Expertise as a Service: Leverage our renowned global expertise to address challenges and achieve objectives across the industry
By Sureyya Topaloglu, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant
Exploring the latest trends in nutrition labeling across Europe reveals a mosaic of approaches, each with its unique backstory and controversies. In our previous exploration, we delved into the growing adoption of the Nutri-Score system and the debates around it. Under Belgium’s EU Presidency, the Nutri-Score labeling system has gained momentum, with countries like the Netherlands and Portugal embracing its potential to empower consumers. Conversely, Italy has opposed Nutri-Score and has implemented its alternative, the NutrInform Battery.
The Quest for a Unified Nutrition Labeling System for Europe
Introduced in France in 2017, Nutri-Score is a color-coded nutrition labeling system categorizing foods based on their nutritional value for a standardized portion size, with grades ranging from A (green), denoting the healthiest options, to E (red). Belgium’s recent declaration paved the way for potential EU-wide adoption of Nutri-Score, building on its established usage in France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland.
The Dutch Ministry of Health has initiated a public campaign titled “Look, Compare and Choose” aimed at promoting the adoption of the Nutri-Score and encouraging consumers to make informed and healthier choices. However, some members of the Netherland’s nutrition community believe adoption of the system contradicts food-based guidelines. Nevertheless, the national government officially announced its decision as a solution to prevent “health-washing.”
NutrInform Battery: An Alternative Nutrition Labeling from Italy
Italy, known for its strong opposition to Nutri-Score, has proposed an alternative approach with NutrInform nutrition labeling. NutrInform displays the percentage of nutrients and energy with a battery symbol to show the serving in relationship to daily recommendations. The Italian Ministry of Health published an electronic form for adherence to the NutrInform logo, including an app for the easier use of NutrInform Battery system.
The Ministry of Food Sovereignty and Forestry stressed defending the national agri-food system against deceptive labeling since the Nutri-Score labeling system has the potential to label traditional foods like cheese and olive oil unfavorably. Italy has strong support from some other EU member states such as Romania, which banned the Nutri-Score system last year.
Insights and Final Thoughts
The Nutri-Score and NutrInform Battery are both front-of-pack nutrition labeling systems designed to help consumers make healthier food choices, but they differ in their approach and presentation. Nutri-Score provides a color-coded grading system to indicate the overall nutritional quality of a food product, while NutrInform Battery offers a detailed breakdown of nutritional components in a battery-like symbol with numeric values, without assigning a single overall grade.
In summary, each system has its strengths and may appeal to different types of consumers based on their preferences and needs. Any labeling system should transparently disclose a food’s content in a simple manner to facilitate and not confuse consumers in their diet choices.
By Kevin C. Kenny, Senior Advisor
Packaging sustainability has become a pressing C-Level concern in food and consumer products industries as consumers, NGOs and governments increasingly demand more eco-friendly solutions. As a result of intense focus of company, industry and governmental resources, extensive progress has been made in the past several years, while significant challenges persist. The good news: within those huge challenges lie opportunities for innovation and improvement which can benefit both the environment and businesses.
Packaging Sustainability Expert Working Group
FoodChain ID launched a specific Food and Consumer Products industry initiative in Oct. 2022 at its Customer Advisory Board (12 of our largest Food/Cosmetics CPG Companies). Executives from attending companies identified Sustainability as their single largest current concern – new, global and very rapidly changing. As a first step, to avoid boiling the ocean, we established a stepwise approach which would begin with one narrower foundational area: Packaging Sustainability was chosen as the biggest immediate challenge.
As a result, in January 2023 we launched monthly Packaging SME meetings bringing together industry packaging and sustainability experts to discuss industry-wide pain points and needs.
The first objective agreed was to harness existing horizon scanning and scraping technologies to rapidly identify new documents or topics in Packaging Sustainability, coupled with identifying which regions or countries are hot for particular topical spaces. As a result, we launched Dashboards both for Food Contact and Packaging Sustainability in April of 2023, designed to distill onto global or regional maps where specific initiatives are bubbling up. This was followed in May 2023 by separate monthly Reports on Global Food Contact and Packaging Sustainability, containing short substantive summaries of new legislation, guidance and initiatives accompanied by expert Impact Analysis written by our packaging SMEs. These 15-20 pp monthly summaries identify global changes in this space over the previous month. Every country globally providing online content is covered.
Next, based upon regular inputs from the monthly Packaging Sustainability Expert meetings, we focused on using our existing technology coupled with native speaker researchers in major markets to build a searchable repository of all documents touching on Packaging- and eventually also Environmental Sustainability. The objective was to bring all existing documents into one centralized location. Doing so enables quick searching and finding e.g., EPR, recycling, single-use, taxation and similar documents globally. Machine translations into English were also provided. Because this area is embryonic and concepts differ between regions, we agreed to include company, industry, NGO and governmental guidance documents. The module was launched in Oct. 2023 and continues to grow, particularly on the Environmental Sustainability topic where new documents appear daily.
Finally, we morphed our team of food contact, product safety and packaging subject matter experts to act as ‘arms and legs’ at companies which have not yet fully developed necessary expertise on their staffs. Our SMEs also provide input and customer feedback on where we need to concentrate precious resources in this space.
Identified Challenges
Single-Use Culture
The prevalence of ‘convenient’ single-use packaging has historically exacerbated waste accumulation. Convenience-driven consumer behaviors contribute to a cycle of excessive packaging consumption and disposal. National, State and municipal governments have intervened to tax or prohibit single use items, which has helped. However, breaking away from a convenience-based culture will require significant consumer education as well as industry-wide shifts towards reusable and refillable packaging solutions.
Regulatory Landscape
As with any rapid-growth situation, a patchwork of competing and variant regulations/standards across jurisdictions have created massive logistical challenges for companies operating in global markets. Compliance with divergent requirements adds complexity and cost to packaging development and distribution, while smaller players in this space simply do not have the resources to comply with a hodge-podge approach. Harmonizing regulations and promoting national, regional and international cooperation would dramatically improve efforts towards sustainability.
Material Selection
Choice of packaging material significantly impacts a company’s environmental footprint. Some substrates – e.g., glass, paper, metals and PET bottles – have been recycled and/or re-used for decades. Other traditional plastics, while cheap and versatile, pose significant recycling challenges and are not actually recycled in practice. Biodegradable alternatives often lack durability or require specific conditions for decomposition, raising questions about their actual sustainability.
Recycling Infrastructure
Companies, States and municipalities have made public recycling pledges that will be difficult or impossible to achieve in practice unless recycling is greatly expanded, soon. Investment is key – inadequate recycling infrastructure today poses a significant hurdle. Many regions lack facilities capable of processing certain types of packaging, leading in practice to high rates of contamination and landfilling. As municipalities struggle to provide appropriate infrastructure, their rules around what can and cannot be recycled frequently change – leading to consumer confusion. Consumer confusion over recycling symbols and actual practice further slows progress.
Supply Chain Complexity
Packaging Sustainability is not just a matter of end-product design; it extends throughout the entire global supply chain. Issues such as transportation emissions, energy-intensive manufacturing processes and purely cost-driven sourcing practices all impact the overall sustainability of packaging solutions.
Consumer Perception and Education
Despite growing awareness, consumers often struggle to make informed choices due to greenwashing, misinformation and rapidly changing local rules. Packaging labels may not accurately reflect environmental impacts, leading to confusion – and skepticism. Consumer confusion causes consumers to simply throw it all into trash cans or to choose incorrect recycling containers, contaminating the recycling stream. Thus, educating consumers about the lifecycle of packaging materials and their environmental implications is essential for fostering sustainable choices. Newer programs such as the “How to Recycle” label from the Sustainable Packaging Coalition should help consumers in directing waste to the correct disposition (recycle, trash, etc.).
Opportunities
Innovative Materials
The development of advanced materials holds promise for enhancing packaging sustainability. From plant-based plastics to biodegradable polymers, ongoing research aims to create alternatives that combine environmental benefits with practicality and affordability.
Circular Economy Models
Transitioning towards a circular economy model presents opportunities for reducing waste and resource consumption. Implementing systems that prioritize reuse, recycling, and composting can minimize the environmental footprint of packaging while creating value from waste materials.
Technology Innovation and Integration
Emerging technologies such as blockchain and smart packaging offer new avenues for improving sustainability. These innovations enable transparent supply chains, traceability and real-time monitoring of packaging performance, facilitating better decision-making and accountability throughout the lifecycle.
Various experiments are also underway using e.g., gasification or pyrolysis (heating in an oxygen-free environment) to convert plastics into fuels that might then be used for heating, running vehicles, etc.
Simplify Streams and Incentivize Consumers
Widely available default options for consumers to assist them with their recycling are needed. Today, recycling complexity lowers consumer compliance. Regulators and/or industry could phase out the use of plastics which are difficult or impossible (too expensive) to recycle, making consumer choices fewer and easier.
While expensive to initially implement, increasing collection rates through more deposit-return programs would also incentivize consumers to recycle.
Finally, the holy grail of recycling innovation would be to implement ‘one-stop dropping’ – collecting all trash and recycling into one (or max two) places, then harnessing innovative AI-based technologies to improve and speed sorting/rejection in a large, centralized recycling center. This has begun in a few places, and the primary challenge is and continues to be cost-effectiveness, but collecting large quantities of recyclable materials in one central location might help tip the scale.
Conclusion
Shared inputs across our largest “brand’ clients so far demonstrate that Packaging Sustainability is a multifaceted challenge – with significant opportunities for innovation and improvement. We have learned together that solving multivariable issues ‘takes a village’ – no one company or government has the resources to completely solve these challenges. However, by combining forces to address the regulatory hurdles, material selection, recycling infrastructure and consumer behavior hurdles, food and cosmetics manufacturers and packagers can drive meaningful progress towards a more sustainable future.
Investing in and embracing new materials, technology advancements, consumer education and circular economy models will be mission critical to achieving real Packaging Sustainability.
By Sureyya Topaloglu, Regulatory Researcher and Regulatory Trends Consultant
TOPLINE SUMMARY
The practice of “greenwashing” is prevalent across consumer products, driven by the economic value consumers place on sustainability. The European Union is working on sustainability regulations to prohibit generic environmental claims on products, including claims of environmental impacts without evidence and sustainability labels lacking approved certification schemes or validation by public authorities.
Packaging Sustainability Trends & Dashboard ‒ search emerging trends and hot-spots globally and regionally, with filters for environmental claims, recycling processes and more.
Carbon Credit Verification ‒ FoodChain ID and its partner ReSeed offer incentivization, measurement and verification of carbon sequestration progress through regenerative agriculture practices under a Carbon Credit Verification Standard.
It’s not hard to imagine the scenario: A restaurant promotes its new “eco-friendly” burger, claiming it’s made with “all-natural ingredients” and packaged in “biodegradable materials.” However, upon closer examination, it’s revealed that while the burger contains fresh components, the “natural” claim is not backed by any regulatory standard. Additionally, the biodegradable packaging is only available in select locations or for certain menu items, while the majority of the restaurant’s products are still sold in traditional non-degradable packaging.
Although the scenario is presented as hypothetical, the practice is common. When a business uses selective or misleading promotion of sustainable benefits while downplaying or ignoring other environmentally harmful practices, it is a known as greenwashing.
Greenwashing is not just an issue in the food industry. The practice is prevalent across consumer products, driven by the economic value consumers place on sustainability. In a broader context, greenwashing poses a major challenge to mitigating climate change. The consumer may believe that a company or entity is taking steps to safeguard the environment, thereby endorsing false or ineffective solutions to the climate crisis.
Sustainability Regulations to Address Greenwashing
The unregulated use of green claims such as eco, environmentally friendly and sustainable has escalated into a widespread issue on a global scale. Too often, product claims cannot be substantiated. Governments and intergovernmental bodies are now actively pursuing legislative measures to regulate unfounded environmental assertions. The United Nations has been urging action for years, and the European Union has initiated regulatory processes to ban greenwashing.
The EU is taking action against greenwashing and raising the bar for companies that make vague, incomplete or false statements regarding their environmental impact. The new directive published in November 2023, “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition,” aims to enhance consumer safeguards by prohibiting misleading advertisements. The legislation, approved by the EU Council and EC, awaits formal approval from the European Parliament and the national parliaments of all 27 EU countries. It will come into force in 2026 if all parties give their approval.
To stop greenwashing, the EU is planning to prohibit generic environmental claims on products, including claims of neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impacts without evidence, assertions of emission offsetting by the producer, and sustainability labels lacking approved certification schemes or validation by public authorities.
The FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard below displays the dramatic rise in citations covering environmental claims. The growing number of the articles from different sources shows increasing attention to the topic of sustainability claims and the potential for greenwashing.
FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard(click to enlarge)
Official and Unofficial Citation Count Over Time: Environmental Claims, Bioplastics, Extended Producer Responsibility. Source: FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard.
The European Union regulatory developments regarding greenwashing will undoubtedly resonate worldwide, with time revealing their impact. However, consumer expectations and any loss of trust caused by greenwashing will accelerate pressure for action on sustainability regulation and product claims. Further public research and surveys in this field will generate momentum for expediting legal proceedings. As stakeholders increasingly prioritize transparency and environmental responsibility, proactive measures taken now can pave the way for a legitimate sustainable future.
By Gul Basak Kiroglu, Regulatory Trends Product Manager
In the first decade of the 2000s, the amount of plastic waste generated globally rose more in a single decade than it had in the previous 40 years. Environmental regulations have also grown exponentially, driving the need for tools that monitor Regulatory Trends or search the Regulatory Library. While attention on plastics and the environment is not new, plastic waste has historically been perceived as an environmental concern only. In the last few years, the health effects of plastic exposure have come under scrutiny.
Microplastics and Regulatory Compliance
A significant portion of plastic waste results from the life cycle of traditional single-use plastics, which were originally designed primarily as oxo-degradable rather than bio-degradable or compostable. This meant that these plastics fragmented into small, persistently non-degradable pieces called microplastics, prompting a cascade of environmental problems. Despite growing environmental regulation, the production of single-use plastic waste continues to escalate, as highlighted in a recent article from CNN.
Microplastics originate not only from plastic waste but also from sources such as tires, textiles, and construction, and the minute particles have far-reaching health consequences. Initially the attention on microplastics focused on the marine environment, where they caused reduced food intake, delayed growth, oxidative damage and abnormal behavior for species in the sea food chain.
Scientists are now researching microplastics within infiltrated soil and air. Studies highlight the ubiquity of microplastics, with the compounds described as trace contaminants comparable to per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). In soil microplastics alter the characteristics of flora and fauna, while in the air, they are carried by the wind and also escape into the atmosphere from seawater, even reaching the Antarctic snow. This presence underscores the urgency of addressing microplastics as a global environmental challenge.
Health Effects of Microplastics Exposure
In addition to the environmental consequences, the health effects of microplastic exposure have recently come under scrutiny. Over the past few years microplastics, along with other emerging contaminants, have been detected in food and drinking water. A study from January 2024 revealed that bottled water can contain hundreds of thousands of previously uncounted tiny plastic bits, with a staggering 240,000 plastic particles found in a single liter. Ironically, a significant portion of these particles appear to originate from plastic filters used in the water purification process before bottling.
The implications of ingesting microplastics are profound, leading to serious health issues such as endocrine disruption, weight gain, insulin resistance, decreased reproductive health, and even cancer. Respiratory exposure to microplastics induces oxidative stress in the airways, resulting in symptoms like coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath. Additionally, fatigue and dizziness can occur due to low blood oxygen concentration.
FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard (click to enlarge)
Official and Unofficial Citation Count Over Time: Microplastics, Single Use Plastics, Flame Retardants. Source: FoodChain ID Sustainability Dashboard
Microplastics and Environmental Regulations: The Need to Adopt Holistic Strategies
To address the plastic crisis, numerous countries have implemented environmental regulations and prohibitions around the world. A pioneering move in this direction came from Bangladesh in 2002, making it the first country globally to impose a total ban on single-use plastics. As of the end of 2023, eight US states have banned single-use plastic bags. Simultaneously, researchers are intensively focusing on developing industrially viable alternative packaging solutions based on bio-polymers, offering hope in the quest for sustainable materials.
Microplastics, recognized as both chemical and physical contaminants, have become a critical concern in the realm of food and drinking water safety. Their ability to adsorb micropollutants makes them potent vectors of contamination, posing a dual threat to human health. As we grapple with the repercussions of plastic waste on both the environment and human well-being, it is imperative to adopt holistic approaches that encompass sustainable alternatives, thoughtful environmental regulations and heightened awareness to address this global crisis comprehensively.
