NAPCOR Response to Consumer Reports "How to Eat Less Plastic"
June 5, 2020
Kevin Loria
Consumer Reports
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkers, NY 10703
Dear Mr. Loria:
I am writing in regard to your articles “How to Eat Less Plastic” and “What’s Gone Wrong with Plastic Recycling” published in Consumer Reports June 2020 because they contain false and misleading information about Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) plastics.
It’s unfortunate that you did not reach out to the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) in advance of writing this story because we could have provided you with the facts and clear information to allow your readers to understand the specifics of microplastics in packaging made with PET and the state of PET recycling. To be fair to the consumer, we kindly request that you update your online story to include the PET packaging industry’s point of view on this very important topic.
Here are the facts:
In your article, you mislead consumers by indicating that BPA, BPS and BPF could be present in “plastics.” We want to be clear that these additives never have been or will be added to packaging made from PET.
PET plastic, carrying the number 1 resin identification code, is the most widely recycled plastic resin, and recycled PET (rPET) material is highly sought after for end uses ranging from new bottles and containers to longer lasting items such as carpeting.
We disagree with your use of the term downcycled. Many leading consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies and retailers have continued their commitment to increase the amount of postconsumer rPET used in their packaging. As a result, we are seeing increased demand for rPET as a feedstock for bottles and containers. Other end markets such as fiber turn rPET into products that are long lasting, providing consumers with many years of use. Once ready to replace, consumers are finding new options to recycle those materials made with PET, such as carpet and textiles. As an example, the carpet industry has developed recycling programs for its products to ensure the same PET material may be recycled over and over again.
During this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, water fountains and refilling stations are simply not accessible and, in many cases, are turned off. We don’t know when these regulations will be lifted, and there’s still a question of whether public refilling stations will be safe to use for those in the high-risk category when social distancing measures are eased. Even during non-pandemic times using a PET water bottle is safe and hygienic, and provides access to clean drinking water when away from home.
Consumers can remain confident that PET packaging made for use in the food and beverage market, is strictly regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and similar regulatory agencies throughout the world, and is safe. As with all food packaging materials, PET packaging must be made from substances approved for food contact by the FDA. This means the PET plastic used for food and beverage containers has undergone FDA scrutiny prior to being available for use in the marketplace. FDA has determined that PET containers used by the food and beverage industry are safe for use with food and beverage products and they do not pose a health risk to consumers.
Your article tells people not to rely on bottled water and uses a single flawed study to support your recommendation. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) asked scientists to review this study and they found that the particles in Professor Sherry Mason’s research had not been identified as plastic but since the alternatives would not be expected in bottled water, they could be described as “probably plastic.” “Probably plastic” is not “plastic.”
A more recent article in the May 2019 issue of Water Research study ––“Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review and assessment of data quality,” by Koelmans et al.–– reviewed 50 microplastic studies and found that only four of these passed research quality standards, and concluded that more data is needed to accurately evaluate potential exposure and risk for human health. (This study was financially supported by the World Health Organization.)
There currently is no scientific consensus on a testing methodology or the potential health impacts of ingesting microplastic particles. Therefore, reports in the media and online do nothing more than unnecessarily scare consumers.
This point was confirmed in an August 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) analysis of current research on microplastic particles in drinking water. The WHO report found: “Based on the limited information we have, microplastics in drinking water don’t appear to pose a health risk at current levels.” The report also stated: “There are no studies on the impacts of ingested microplastics on human health and there are only a limited number of animal studies of questionable reliability and relevance.” The report also noted that “[a]lthough there is insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the toxicity related to the physical hazard of plastic particles, particularly the nano size particles, no reliable information suggests it is a concern through drinking-water exposure.”
Because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that microplastic particles pose a health risk, FDA has not issued any regulations concerning these substances in foods and beverages. Any regulatory action concerning microplastic particles would need to be based on sound science, including demonstrating a correlation between the levels of this substance found in foods and beverages and any potential adverse health effects.
As always, the PET packaging industry is committed to providing consumers with the safest and highest quality products, and we are following any scientific developments on this subject closely.
We kindly ask that you review the information provided above and update your article to more accurately reflect the facts regarding the safety of PET plastics.
Sincerely,
Laura Stewart
Communications Director
cc: Kevin Doyle, Executive Editor, Consumer Reports