New Compostable PLA-based Packaging for Cosmetic Products

Toxicologists have developed a new biodegradable packaging that helps cosmetics firms meet customers’ demand for environmentally friendly packaging at Heriot-Watt University.

The new packaging solves a conundrum for cosmetics firms that currently sell organic, ‘clean’ products in plastic containers made from fossil fuel products that cannot degrade and will forever remain in landfill.

PLA-based New Packaging

The new packaging is made from polylactic acid (PLA), which can be obtained from renewable resources like corn starch or sugar cane and is compostable and biodegradable.

Polylactic acid (PLA) was selected as the plastic for the new packaging, but in order to improve the performance of this plastic, and to increase the shelf life of the cosmetic product, two different materials were incorporated. 

Nano clays and rosemary extract were added as the nano clays improve the barrier properties of the product and rosemary extract acts as an antioxidant to protect the cosmetic product from degradation.

“As toxicologists, we know that even natural ingredients like rosemary can be toxic in the right dose. At Heriot-Watt we tested the toxicity of the rosemary extracts and different types of nano clays to select the least toxic candidates for the final product, to ensure it is safe for consumers”, said Dr Helinor Johnston, associate professor of toxicology at Heriot-Watt.

The BioBeauty Project

The BioBeauty project develops bio-packaging, which offers the same environmental credentials as the products it contains. The team believes the new biopackaging has huge potential in the cosmetics market.

The BioBeauty consortium comprised eight partners from five different countries: Spain, Scotland, Slovenia, the Netherlands and France. The partners are ITENE, Heriot-Watt University, Miniland, Alissi Brontë, Alan Coar, Vitiva, Martin Snijder Holding BV and ETS Bugnon. 

Risk Assessment for Potential Harmful Components

Researchers focused on assessing potential harmful impacts on the skin, but also looked at the response of target sites like the liver and immune system. A toxicological profile of the individual components was established along with the assessment of potential risk to the consumer from any migration of the packaging components of the final product. 

“We’re creating better ways to test products ethically. As part of this project, we used artificial skin to provide a more comprehensive assessment of how the packaging might react with skin,” said Johnston.

Johnston said “Brands that develop natural and organic products need packaging that aligns with their philosophy and consumer demand for more environmentally-friendly packaging that reduces waste."

Source: Heriot-Watt University

EFSA Reviews Safe Levels for Five Phthalates in Plastic FCM and Packaging

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued an update of the risk assessment of the phthalates DBP, BBP, DEHP, DINP and DIDP for use in food contact materials. EFSA reviewed the safe levels for the five phthalates in plastic FCM and evaluated whether current dietary exposure to them posed a concern for public health.

Setting a New Safe Level

EFSA experts have now set a new safe level – a group Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) – for four of the five phthalates (DBP, BBP, DEHP and DINP) of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight (µg/kg bw) per day based on their effects on the reproductive system.

The TDI is an estimate of the amount of a substance that people can ingest daily during their whole life without any appreciable risk to health. The key effect on which this group-TDI is based is a reduction in testosterone in fetuses. The fifth phthalate in the assessment, DIDP, does not affect testosterone levels in fetuses, therefore we set a separate TDI of 150 µg/kg bw per day based on its effects on the liver (as in our 2005 evaluation).

The TDIs are set on a temporary basis due to uncertainties about effects other than the reproductive ones and about the contribution of plastic FCM to overall consumer exposure of phthalates. The experts have identified a need to address these uncertainties by considering the whole body of evidence.

Current Exposure to Phthalates Not a Concern for Health

The current exposure to these five phthalates from food is not a concern for public health. Dietary exposure to the group of DBP, BBP, DEHP and DINP for average consumers is 7 µg/kg bw or seven times below the safe level, while for high consumers it is 12 µg/kg bw, which is four times lower. For DIDP, the dietary exposure for high consumers is 1,500 times below the safe level.

This new assessment of the five phthalates is in line with its 2005 assessment in terms of their most sensitive effects and the individual tolerable daily intakes. The main differences concern an improved estimate of dietary exposure to phthalates and the introduction of the group-TDI for four of the phthalates to account for combined exposure to several phthalates at the same time. This is a common occurrence and confirmed by data from studies with humans, e.g. traces found in urine.

Source: EFSA