A meta-study identifies 3,600 chemical substances in contact with food. A hundred scientists They demand a future without toxins from the Spanish Government. 36% of the food analyzed in Spain have traces of pesticidesThree news items this week draw attention to the fact that every day we are exposed to toxic substances that, in the long term, can have long-term effects on health. Miguel Motas (Madrid, 50 years old), professor of Toxicology at the Universidad Nacional de Madrid, knows this well. University of Murciawho has been working in environmental toxicology in both Antarctica and Spain for over two decades.
Ask. What are the 3,600 food contact chemicals that have found their way into human samples?
Answer. The study published this week has three sources: the scientific literature on all that has been published on substances in packaging or in contact with food, human biomonitoring programs, and also exposomes —analyses of what may be in a sample from a human being. From these three sources, they have found 14,000 known substances in packaging and food, of which around 3,600 reach blood, breast milk and hair. These include substances such as bisphenols, phthalates, metals, for which there are already regulations and which are being reduced, and others that are in these materials but have not yet been fully evaluated.
P. Which ones are still left to be evaluated?
R. I would highlight antioxidants and some oligomers, which are not suspect but need further evaluation. They are known to be present in these containers and are absorbed by the body. The work provides a tool grouped in a freely accessible database, which opens a path for researchers. If we find a dangerous antioxidant, the authorities have to monitor it and, if necessary, ban it.
P. Are there any endocrine disruptors among them?
Discover the pulse of the planet in every news story, don’t miss a thing.
KEEP READING
R. Yes. Bisphenols, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds and some metals are endocrine disruptors, which can cause reproductive problems, breast cancer, diabetes, obesity… Europe is the most protected continent in the world in this area. Technologically, we need plastics, but they are risky. There is much less risk than years ago, and we are increasingly detecting smaller quantities of contaminants with more subtle effects. But bisphenol A is cheap, so if you replace it, the product will become more expensive. Now, bisphenol F or Z are used, which are safer, but they also have risks. We are not totally protected, but we are much more protected than before.
P. Critics say that when an endocrine disruptor is evaluated, its combined effect with other chemicals is not checked.
R. This is the case with all toxic substances. It is a limitation of toxicology, because the mixture of substances is infinite. I trust that in the future artificial intelligence will help us in this field. Another limitation is testing with human beings. We work with experimental animals, and rats have a metabolism almost identical to humans, but they are still rats. We overcome these barriers with correction indices: When a dose does not cause any measurable toxic effect in a rat, it is divided by 100 so that it can be present in a food.
P. Is food packaging safe?
R. They are safe, but they need to be safer. I am a father and I am not reassured at all by the fact that there are traces of bisphenol, perfluorinated substances and that chemical cocktail in the packaging. We have to continue to move forward to find a zero level of endocrine disruptors. We have eliminated them in the teats of baby bottles, in certain products for children, but there are others in other packaging. It is very difficult to assess whether a substance enters the body today and in 20 years at a hormonal level it could prevent me from reproducing, so we must seek the maximum possible safety.
P. In 2022, the European Commission initiated a major ban on toxic chemicals in everyday use. Where is this at?
R. The chemical industry is very important, and thanks to it and the use of certain substances, there are cheaper products and, for example, less risk of fire (flame retardants), but small quantities of pollutants are also released that have subtle effects on a chronic level. Evaluating them takes a lot of time and money. Pressure from industry and the consumer, who need products at an affordable price, makes it difficult to restrict them, but when their danger is proven, they are banned in Europe. However, the Asian industry does not have European legislation. I would not buy a toy for my son in an Asian 100-dollar store, because many times it does not meet the quality standards regarding endocrine disruptors. Something similar happens with food: what is imported does not always comply with our legislation, and there are no resources to control everything. European food, and especially organic food, avoids them, but it is more expensive.
P. Ecologists in Action has published a report based on official data showing that 36% of food samples from 2022 contained pesticides. What problems do they cause?
R. We can now detect more and more substances and in very small quantities, which does not mean that once they are absorbed they cause effects. What is absorbed binds to proteins and goes to the liver, which tries to deactivate it and speed up its elimination. If a balance is maintained, we have defense mechanisms so that what is absorbed does not cause problems. Their presence does not mean that they are a danger to health, because most of them comply with the legal limits. It is also true that with life expectancy becoming longer and longer, subtle effects at a chronic level are complex to evaluate: Is it possible that the cancer I am diagnosed with at 70 years of age could be due to a mixture of substances to which I have been exposed earlier in my life? It is very difficult to establish this causal relationship.
P. A hundred scientists have submitted a document to Congress to request measures against “the alarming exposure to toxic substances derived from plastic and other everyday health products.” What do you think?
R. I think this is great. We must always advocate for science. The problem is that at a political level we need urgent results and science provides benefits in the longer term. In line with this manifesto, we must invest much more in science and we need a budget to improve the safety of all products.
P. Should we use less plastic?
R. In general, we should try to replace plastic in every possible way. Plastic inundates us with pollutants and the environment. When I was a child, I would take glass containers and return them to the supermarket after using them. Whenever I have the option, I choose glass instead of plastic. And I would never put a plastic container with food in the microwave, because we have more and more evidence of substances that we could not measure before that are passing into the food. Plastic is not inert, we have more and more new substances with that subtle effect of endocrine disruptor.
P. Why is legislation so slow to ban these substances?
R. When I worked at the Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), in 2017, I led a biomonitoring study of adolescents to investigate their exposure to different substances, and it has been seven years since a similar state-wide programme was launched for the entire population. At the political level, it is very slow, because nobody likes to talk about contaminants, about the effects they have on health, and the benefits are very long-term. And political support is needed to approve new legislation.
P. What will this program consist of?
R. The ISCIII centralizes the studies and sends the samples (blood, hair, breast milk) to different laboratories – one of them is ours – for analysis. We are looking for new substances. For example, bisphenol A has been banned in certain foods and plastic containers, and more are to be banned. We are already looking for bisphenol F and Z, which are the substitutes that the industry is using. This is like the dopingWe are looking for new emerging substances, we monitor new substances that are emerging to see to what extent the population is exposed and if that exposure is alarming. Then we will do studies at a national level accompanied by epidemiological surveys: a sample is taken from someone and they are asked what they eat, what they drink, where they live, what sport they do, what clothes they wear… in order to establish the source of the contaminant. They are anonymous samples, but if a dangerous level is detected, the person is contacted so that they can go to a specialist. This happened to us with a previous study in Huelva, in an area with a lot of tuna consumption, where teenagers had dangerous levels of mercury.
P. Has something similar happened to you in other studies?
R. Yes. We conducted a study on breast milk. Portman and Cartagena are among the most heavily metal-contaminated areas in Europe; milk is a route for the elimination of metals. It is not advisable for a person living there to breastfeed a newborn child, who is especially sensitive to lead and mercury, because the child is being put at risk. There was a paediatrician who mobilised a pro-breastfeeding association and they filed a complaint. The best thing is breastfeeding, but if you live in the most metal-contaminated area in Europe, it is not the most appropriate.
P. What are you researching in Antarctica?
R. I have been working there for more than 20 years to see what contaminants there are, because it is the purest area on the planet. It is difficult to measure contamination in the air and water, but it is easier in penguins, because they are at the top of the food chain and the levels are amplified. In penguins we have found mercury, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, even cadmium and selenium at levels that are toxic to the animal. This confirms that we are polluting the planet globally.
#Miguel #Motas #toxicologist #put #plastic #container #food #microwave