Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scientific Challenges in the Risk Assessment of Food Contact Materials

Open access
Muncke, Jane, Backhaus, Thomas, Geueke, Birgit, Maffini, Maricel V., Martin, Olwenn Viviane, Myers, John Peterson, Soto, Ana M., Trasande, Leonardo, Trier, Xenia, Scheringer, Martin·2017·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Food contact articles (FCAs) are manufactured from food contact materials (FCMs) that include plastics, paper, metal, glass, and printing inks. Chemicals can migrate from FCAs into food during storage, processing, and transportation. Food contact materials' safety is evaluated using chemical risk assessment (RA). Several challenges to the RA of FCAs exist. OBJECTIVES: We review regulatory requirements for RA of FCMs in the United States and Europe, identify gaps in RA, and highlight opportunities for improving the protection of public health. We intend to initiate a discussion in the wider scientific community to enhance the safety of food contact articles. DISCUSSION: Based on our evaluation of the evidence, we conclude that current regulations are insufficient for addressing chemical exposures from FCAs. RA currently focuses on monomers and additives used in the manufacture of products, but it does not cover all substances formed in the production processes. Several factors hamper effective RA for many FCMs, including a lack of information on chemical identity, inadequate assessment of hazardous properties, and missing exposure data. Companies make decisions about the safety of some food contact chemicals (FCCs) without review by public authorities. Some chemical migration limits cannot be enforced because analytical standards are unavailable. CONCLUSION: ) developing novel approaches for assessing the safety of chemicals in FCAs, including unidentified chemicals that form during or after production. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP644.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp644

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Muncke, J., Backhaus, T., Geueke, B., Maffini, M. V., Martin, O. V., Myers, J. P., Soto, A. M., Trasande, L., Trier, X., & Scheringer, M.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2017-09-22
Volume
125
Issue
9
Pages
095001-095001
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2756348307
Cited by
170
References
2
FWCI
10.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scientific Challenges in the Risk Assessment of Food Contact Materials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp644
The paper
Muncke, J., Backhaus, T., Geueke, B., Maffini, M. V., Martin, O. V., Myers, J. P., Soto, A. M., Trasande, L., Trier, X., & Scheringer, M. (2017). Scientific Challenges in the Risk Assessment of Food Contact Materials. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp644

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.