Global Food Contact 2019 Agenda

The goal of the workshop is to address the following:

• NIAS assessment (i.e. POSH, other oligomers, pefluorocarbon chemicals, mineral oil, primary aromatic amines (PAAs))
• Confusion on what can be done and how can it be done when it comes to NIAS - how to check for contamination
• Guidance to tests - what to do and how to know what tests to do
• What about those substances which are not assessed by EFSA? i.e. NIAS breakdown and reaction products, there is no positive list - how to manage this?
• Industry has toxicological data via REACH and derive own limits - how to calculate acceptable limits to be in compliance with framework legislation
• What do member states accept and what do they not regarding testing data for NIAS - ECHA what data do they accept?

12:45-13:15 Registration

13:15 Introduction to the workshop and speakers by the chairperson (Alejandro)

13:20 Introduction to some of the challenges industry face in regards to NIAS (Ioan)

13:30 Presentation by Dennis: Risk assessment of NIAS: putting the ILSI guidance into practice

• How to balance safety and costs in the risk assessment of NIAS
• Analytical screening methods, quantification and identification of NIAS
• Hazard and exposure assessment of NIAS through Matrix and FACET
• How to deal with risk assessment of unidentified NIAS

14:00 Q&A time- all speakers to discuss the following question: What about those substances which are not assessed by EFSA? i.e. NIAS breakdown and reaction products, there is no positive list - how to manage this?

 14:15 Break

14:45 Presentation by Christian: Application of in-vitro bioassays in the safety evaluation of unidentified NIAS

• Optimisation and validation of in-vitro bioassays for the analysis of food contact materials (FCM)
• Detection of DNA-reactive genotoxic substances with a miniaturized Ames Test
• How can Bioassays support the application of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern for unidentified NIAS
• Chances and pitfalls for the application of in-vitro bioassays for FCM testing
• Results from the in-vitro bioassay analysis of more than 100 FCM

15:15 Presentation by Ioan: Industry has toxicological data via REACh and derive own safety limits
 

• Industry has toxicological data via REACh and derive own safety limits - how to calculate acceptable limits to be in compliance with FCM Framework EU Regulation, including NIAS substances?
• Which tox data, available under REACh can be used regarding NIAS risk assessment ? Introduction to certain industry guidelines on risk assessment of FCM, including NIAS

15:45 -16:00 Summary Comments from all speakers and chairperson and end of workshop 

 

• Member state guidance- requirements and timelines
• News and updates regarding FCM regulation from member state perspective
• Mutual recognition for FCM

 

 

• Current status of Food Contact Material legislation – what is and isn’t harmonised?
• Member State motivation to create legislation at national level in the absence of harmonised legislation, and the issues that this creates for industry.
• Progress of current harmonisation efforts – is a new approach needed?

 

• Approaches for applying article 3 of the framework regulation to non-harmonised FCMs
• Risk assessing and risk managing non-harmonised FCMs & FCAs.
• Advice and guidance on risk assessments for non-harmonised materials

 

 

• Is the current EU legislative framework for Food Contact Materials (FCM)  fit for purpose for paper materials
• How the regulatory environment will evolve in the EU (including, after Brexit) and what the paper industry would wish for
• Safeguarding consumer safety: the issues and priorities

Industry experts will discuss the question, what could a new food regulation in Europe look like. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) regulates food additives under the authority of the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the 1997 amendment known as the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA). FDAMA both defined a food contact substance and provided for the Agency’s Food Contact Substance Notification Program. All food contact substances require premarket approval based on their intended use. FDA has historically considered exposure from printing inks on food packaging to be minimal and has not required premarket approval for printing inks. However, with the recent studies showing migration of printing ink components into food, regulatory bodies across the world are facing new challenges on how to regulate printing inks. This presentation will give an overview of the U.S. FDA’s current regulatory framework for food contact materials and will discuss some of the scientific and regulatory questions surrounding printing inks on food packaging

 

• Basic principles and structures
• Indirect Food Additive versus Positive Listing approach
• Differences in exposure scenarios and risk assessment approaches
• Threshold of regulatory concern and No-migration principle versus EU barrier concept
• Differences in approval process for new substances

 

This session will be hosted by:  Pavlina Chopova-Leprêtre, Associate Mayer Brown Europe-Brussels LLP

Regulatory standards are changing over time and require companies to invest in keeping their information from suppliers up to date. A system that both collects the information and provides statements of compliance at the front end, automates our way of working.  Avery Dennison, has developed a tool that is used globally to connect data from suppliers with regulatory compliance. Our next step has been to introduce food contact information into this tool and allow for an easy stream of information to our customers. This makes for an easy to  do business with environment and is the next step in transparency in the supply chain. 

Hosted by: John van Bruchem, MSc.  Product Regulatory Compliance Specialist, Avery Dennison

 

 

• Public pressure is driving the need for the development of Food Contact Materials that are environmentally friendly – for example paper board.
• Can you produce food contact materials that can really be a true replacement for plastic?
• How to manage non harmonised legislation for paper

This will be an engaging and interactive session, to encourage networking and informal discussion between participants. 

• Changes to date – clearly summarised and explained
• What are the rules and regulations?
• Common challenges and hurdles and how to overcome this
• Confusion – where is the confusion and clarification upon this
• Guideline for import processes in China for FCM
• New proposals –will any be adopted

 

• State of play, what is new, what happened since 2017
• Japan new positive lists.
• Understanding changes linked to key associations (JHOSPHA- trade association in Japan) who currently play a pivotal role with FCM in Japan
• The role of the Ministry of Health in Japan and how this is changing – what does this mean for industry?
• Summary of changes and clarification on developments

 

• State of play, what is new, what happened since 2017
• Summary of changes and clarification on developments
• India changes

 

 

• A comparison of the regulatory situation in MERCOSUR, the EU, the US-FDA, Chinese and Japanese regulations
• Advanced trends on how countries and blocks with FCMs regulations in force regard the EU and US-FDA regulations as references.

 

• Food packaging sustainability in trading markets - open discussion 
• Other regional updates from across the globe - Q&A from the audience 

Nanosilver is a wide-spectrum antimicrobial: It can be used to prevent food spoilage and food poisoning related to food contact material

Risk assessment and characterisation for silver nanoparticles are available
Regulatory framework: both EU BPR and PIM (EU 10/2011) apply
High bureaucratic burden for SME in the EU
Application for approval as biocidal substance and food contact material was submitted by RAS AG – updates on the approval process and status

• Substances migrating into foodstuffs are a concern, and barrier materials stopping that migration are more and more common on the market
• Due to the lack of harmonisation, many methods exist to evaluate barrier to contaminant properties
•  Comparability of methods has been evaluated in order to draw conclusions on their relevance

 

 

• There is a risk that mineral oil constituents migrate to food and a need to develop mineral oil barriers that protects food by keeping oil residues out of it.
• Exploring solutions that can guarantee that our food is reliably protected against mineral oil and other contaminants.
• This presentation explores some examples of the determination of MOSH-MOAH in polyolefin samples and experimental HVTR (heptane vapor transmission rate) tests for different types of barrier materials.

 

MOSH-MOAH determination in polyolefin samples and HVTR test for barrier materials

Sonia Huertas Senior Scientist , Repsol &  Piedad Curiel Laboratory Manager, Repsol, Spain