The international magazine for the pet food packaging industry
Plasticizers, flame retardants, UV stabilizers: Every piece of packaging contains more than just plastic. As a rule, it is a complex composite material with dozens of additives designed to improve durability, stability, or flexibility. However, many of these substances are now the subject of intense criticism. They are considered environmentally persistent pollutants, hormonally active, or potentially carcinogenic – and that is precisely why they are a key issue for a future plastics agreement.
At the INC-5 round of negotiations in Busan in December 2024, the regulation of these chemicals was one of the most contentious topics. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) presented a list of several hundred substances of particular concern – including PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). The aim is to establish binding reduction pathways or even bans for these substances within the framework of the global agreement.
This is a turning point that affects many industries – but especially the packaging industry. PFAS, for example, are found in many barrier films and sealing layers because they repel grease, water, and dirt. Phthalates provide the desired elasticity, while BPA serves as a starting material for certain plastics. Without these additives, many types of packaging would have to be redesigned.
The challenge is that substitutes must not only fulfill the same function, but also be harmless to health, environmentally friendly, and marketable. And that means worldwide. In a globalized market, packaging from Europe can quickly end up in Asia, North America, or Latin America. Different standards lead to uncertainty and inhibit innovation. That is precisely why the plastics agreement should also address this issue—with clear guidelines for everyone.
The dispute over the right system
In Busan, it became clear how difficult this process is. A central point of contention was the question of what criteria should be used to classify a substance as problematic in the future. Environmental organizations and many countries in the Global North are calling for a so-called “negative listing”: anything that is not expressly considered safe should be banned or strictly regulated. Industry, on the other hand, favors “positive lists,” to which permitted substances are gradually added.
This seemingly technical question has enormous implications. Depending on which system prevails, the burden of proof will also change. With negative listing, manufacturers would have to provide comprehensive evidence that a substance is harmless. With a positive list, on the other hand, they could initially use new additives – as long as they are not explicitly prohibited.
This also raises the question of who is responsible for these tests. Do states have to prove that a substance is dangerous, or do companies have to prove that it is not? This debate is not only legally significant, but also economically significant. The higher the cost of testing, risk assessment, and approval, the greater the advantage of financially strong large corporations over smaller manufacturers. Many small packaging manufacturers in the pet food sector are already facing high testing costs and long approval times.
Evidence in the body: microplastics and additives everywhere
The need for action has been scientifically proven. Studies show that microplastics and plastic additives can now be detected almost everywhere – in drinking water, in marine organisms, in the air, in the soil. And also in the human body. Researchers have found microplastic particles in human blood, in the placenta and even in the brains of mice. Whether and how these substances affect health in the long term has not yet been conclusively clarified – but the pressure to act is growing.
In Europe, the so-called “Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability” is already in effect. It is part of the European Green Deal and provides, among other things, for a ban on particularly hazardous substance groups, including PFAS and certain endocrine-disrupting additives. A global agreement could not only accelerate this momentum, but also scale it globally – with drastic consequences for suppliers who have previously been active in less regulated markets.
What does this mean for pet food packaging?
The situation is particularly complex for companies that manufacture packaging for pet food. It is not just a question of technical properties such as impermeability, odor barrier, or weldability—food safety is also an issue. Additives are often necessary for functional reasons, for example to prevent fat migration or to protect the product from light and oxygen.
But it is precisely these functional additives that are now under scrutiny. Although many of the substances currently in use have been around for years, little research has been done on their long-term effects, especially when ingested chronically by pets. In addition, requirements along the supply chain are increasing: retailers and brand manufacturers are increasingly demanding “cleaner chemistry,” i.e., packaging with as few documented and harmless ingredients as possible.
This increases the pressure on converters, raw material suppliers, and machine manufacturers alike. Anyone who wants to continue packaging pet food successfully in the future will not only need new materials, but also transparency across the entire value chain. Questions such as “What additives are contained?”, “Are these approved in target markets?” or “Can they migrate?” are becoming the new norm in day-to-day business.
Innovation with tailwind
At the same time, the new wave of regulations also offers opportunities. Many companies are already investing in new solutions:
These approaches not only provide regulatory certainty, but also strengthen the confidence of retailers and consumers. Those who act early can secure a competitive advantage – both in established markets and in regions that will soon follow suit.
Less is more
The global community agrees: The proliferation of chemical additives in plastics must come to an end. The planned global agreement will – as much is already clear – not only question recycling, but also the chemistry behind it. And that will profoundly change the market.
For the packaging industry, this means that the future lies in simplicity, transparency, and global comparability. Those who still think in terms of complex multilayers will soon have to rethink their approach. Those who rely on additive-intensive barriers should consider alternatives. And those who have documented their supply chains only minimally to date will find it difficult to survive in the market in the future.
In the next issue:
We take a look at the heart of the agreement: the global circular economy. What needs to happen for plastic to be recycled instead of disposed of worldwide – and who is responsible for this? From extended producer responsibility to design for recycling to international infrastructure issues – the next part of our series provides answers.
).png)
