Plastic Ban but no National Standards for Food Safety Containers . . .Yet!

This reporter began three weeks ago documenting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs or fluorinated compounds) and the adverse health risks associated with long-term use and consumption. The chemicals are found in several products, including some compostable food containers, and PFAs have been proven to leech into food. The compounds are not biodegradable and take hundreds of years to break down in the environment, making the term “compostable” paradoxical for products which contain them. Verne Emmanuel finally agreed to sit with me three Thursdays ago concerning the role of the Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards in the new plastic and Styrofoam importation ban and how alternatives would be managed. He explained that a standard is developed by the Bureau through consensus and, as it stands, “with regards to food safety and how we develop standards, currently there are no national standards for food safety containers”.

The Bureau does not dictate what can be purchased but merely verifies whether imported products meet standards. But, there are none for food service containers to meet. Emmanuel says that the Bureau is working to adopt the International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) technical regulation for food safety and food packaging manufacturing. The Bureau is a member of the ISO. The CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality, CROSQ, is also a network which provides information on standards to the Bureau.

Further, all imported products must pass a conformity assessment—most times done by manufacturers and presented to the Bureau by importers—which ensures that they adhere to international standards. If there is no national standard for something, these conformity assessments prevent below internationally standard products from being imported.

My specific concern during our meeting was the possibility of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) being blindly imported into Saint Lucia. “If those chemicals are not permitted in an international standard, then they would not be permitted within our local standards,” said Emmanuel. But my reporting three weeks ago explained that several countries and businesses are independently banning production and importation of compostable food containers containing the harmful chemicals, meaning these are actions not facilitated by international standards. Just this week it was reported that major fast-food chains Chipotle and Sweetgreen were found to have PFAs in their “eco-friendly” and certified compostable fibre bowls. It was also reported recently that the Barbados government found some imported compostable products to have high levels of fluorinated compounds, causing a product recall.

Emmanuel repeated several times during our talk that food safety “is always a priority,” so the first things food service containers are checked for: “Any product that is intended to be in contact with food surfaces, it should be clean, impervious and contain no objectionable odour or taste. You want them to not be reactive in any form. No leeching into your food.”

But as for PFAs, since compostable products have been passing conformity assessments, Emmanuel says, “There’s been no report of products containing PFAs in unacceptable levels in the supply chain,” and the Ministry of Health, which is responsible for technical regulations, has not tested for this because, “We don’t know that the supply chain is contaminated. So, there is no reason to go and check in that regard.”

However, when asked if PFA tests should be considered, he said, “Well, it’s something I’ve received a lot of information on. It’s something to be included in terms of as we set the composting standards and the biodegradable standards. But the things that are safety related are not only regulated by standards, they become technical regulations . . . The issue is that you need to distinguish between quality and standards. Standards set the minimum quality, but the market sets the quality. But what the market accepts is what is the market driven quality. So irrespective that something may meet a standard, it may fail in its life cycle.”

Asked whether he believed that a technical regulation should be considered for PFAs: “Yeah, it’s something to be taken on, definitely.”

But as for something like Barbados’ incident happening here, he said, “It’s possible. While yes, we get information, we then have to go through a verification process to see what is the level of risk of this actually coming here. For us it may be high because if enough places are banning it and we don’t . . . then people may wish to dump into Saint Lucia. We recognise and adopt the international standards which facilitate the exchange of goods without the elimination of technical barriers to trade. Our current legislative framework has enough protections to prevent and eliminate the dumping of non-compliant products into Saint Lucia.”

According to Emmanuel, a news report of the harmful chemical infiltrating the supply chain in a neighbouring island is not considered an alert. “All he [Barbados Minister Dwight Sutherland] is doing, is saying that in some of the products that are claiming—and that’s the other issue that we’re actually vigilant on, the issue of false claims–well, no alarm was raised in the context but as we continue to phase out of single-use plastics, standards and the conformity assessment framework, will ensure that the replacement food service containers are safe. It is an offence to falsely claim that a product complies to a standard developed outside of Saint Lucia.”

What happens now? Emmanuel did assure that with the current work of the Bureau and CROSQ, Saint Lucia will adopt regional standards for food safety, and if a complaint is made with regard to non-compliance, the matter will be investigated as required by the Standards Act. But, in the meantime, products remain to be untested for PFAs specifically on the basis that they pass conformity assessments.