Snack food packaging migration

In the absence of specific legislation for the other (non-plastic) food contact materials used in take-away and snack food packaging then the plastics legislation is used as a guide, although limits are not taken as presumptive standards. Where possible, in the absence of specific migration limits (SMLs), levels found are related back to exposure restrictions such as tolerable daily intake (TDl) or acceptable daily intake (ADI). 

Features of snack food packaging that may result in increased migration... 

Generic studies describing chemicai migration from snack food packaging... 

Specific migration studies in which snack food packaging materiais have been investigated... 

Many of the studies carried out to determine the migration from take-away and snack food packaging have been funded by the UK Food Standards Agency and additional information relating to these studies may be found on the FS A website (www.food.gov.uk). Detailed reports describing all the FS A funded work outlined in this chapter are available from the enquiry desk of the FSA library (e-mail library info foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk). 

Chemical migration from snack and take-away food packaging 417... 

When applying the conventional food contact ratio the worst-case migration potential did not exceed the SML for any of the substances derived from plastics nor did the calculated worst-case exposure exceed the ADI/TDI or other exposure restriction value in any products. However, when the actual food contact ratio was applied the ADI/TDI or other exposure restriction value of several substances could theoretically be exceeded. The worst-case calculations assume that intimate contact is made with the entire surface of the packaging. This is not the case for the majority of snack foods that are solids or semi-solids and so the actual area of contact made will be less than the total area available for contact (e.g. crisps). The levels of those migrants (diisobutyl phthalate, dicyclohexyl phthalate, dibutyl sebacate, diphenyl 2-ethylhexyl phosphate and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol) that had the potential to exceed the assigned restrictions, assuming 100% migration, were determined in foods. Of the five substances tested for, only one, dicyclohexyl phthalate, was detected in one of the foodstuffs (tortilla corn chips), at a concentration of 0.60 ppm. 

PP packaging films are nsually printed on their surfaces (e.g., in confectionery and snack food prodncts packaging). In this case however, the transfer of ink components can occnr from the onter printed surface of the film onto the inner food contact snrfaces. If there are plasticisers like dihexyl phthalate (DHP) [or bis-w-butyl phthalate (DBP), or di-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP)] in the ink, up to 6% of the DHP can migrate to the food immediately (or 6.7 mg/kg for 180 days storage of a chocolate/confectionery product), the proportion increasing with storage time. 

---