Scientific Researcher of the Department of Environmental Chemistry, Institute of Environmental Diagnosis and Water Studies (IDAEA - CSIC)Ethel Eljarrat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment of her.Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation ES.No single-use plastic straws, spoons, or plates.In addition, hoteliers are obliged to offer free non-packaged water.These are some of the most innovative measures included in the new Waste Law approved a few weeks ago in Congress.A law that also plans to implement the SDDR (deposit, return and return systems for plastic containers) and the obligation to dedicate at least 20% of the surface of supermarkets to the sale of products without packaging.But, without a doubt, the approved measure that has provoked the most debates during the processing of the Law has been the prohibition of the use of some dangerous substances in food packaging.Specifically, in December 2021, Congress approved the amendment that prohibited the use of phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) in packaging.The Senate later overturned this ban.And once back in Congress, the initial amendment was recovered.Why so many ups and downs?What are these compounds?Why have different social and scientific entities supported the prohibition of its use in packaging?BPA and phthalates are high volume production chemicals that have been used for several decades to make plastics.BPA provides robustness to plastics, and is primarily used to make polycarbonate and epoxy resins.Phthalates, meanwhile, provide flexibility, and are used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC).Those acronyms – BPA and PVC – sound familiar to all of us because they are used to make reusable bottles, tableware and storage containers.In addition to that they are present in protective coatings and sheets for beverage and food cans.The danger is that both BPA and phthalates can migrate in small amounts to foods and beverages stored in the plastic materials that contain them.That means that we are all exposed to these compounds continuously.And although this exposure does not cause immediate adverse effects, it does produce chronic toxicity.Even very small concentrations (on the order of parts per billion) can cause long-term damage.What type of damage exactly?Both BPA and phthalates are endocrine disruptors, meaning they disrupt our hormonal functions.There is scientific evidence that BPA can affect neurological development in children, reduce fertility, and trigger diabetes and obesity.It is also associated with prostate cancer.As for phthalates, some are linked to adverse reproductive and metabolic outcomes.And there are also studies that link them to an increased risk of problems with learning, attention and behavior in children.With such a curriculum, it is logical that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has established Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) levels for these compounds.This is an estimate of the amount of a substance that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable risk.In its 2015 risk assessment, EFSA set a TDI for BPA of 4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day.But recently, in December 2021, the EFSA Expert Panel reduced this TDI by 100,000 times, down to 0.04 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day.This reduction is a consequence of new scientific studies that have emerged since 2013, and particularly those that indicate adverse effects of BPA on the immune system.The problem is that if we compare the estimated average exposure to BPA through the diet with the new TDI values, the new maximum recommended value is far exceeded.That is why it is so necessary to reduce current exposure levels to this compound.And to achieve this, more restrictive measures are required, such as those contained in the new Waste Law.It is not the first time that BPA has gained prominence.In 2011 the European Union already banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and children's toys.And in 2018 its use was prohibited in any food packaging for children from 0 to 3 years old.Although it is true that the prohibition in any type of packaging does not exist at the European Union level, other countries such as France already prohibited its use in 2014 in all food uses, applying the precautionary principle.The new Waste Law represents an important advance in the elimination of toxic compounds to improve human health.However, it should not be forgotten that BPA and phthalates are not the only endocrine disruptors present in everyday materials.There are more than 3,000 different chemical substances associated with plastic materials.Of these, more than 60 are characterized as substances of high risk to health and would require similar measures.On the other hand, it will also be necessary to control the chemical alternatives that arise in substitution of the now prohibited compounds.For example, Bisphenol S (BFS) or Bisphenol F (BPF) appear as alternatives to BPA.These are chemical products with very similar structure and properties and, consequently, their environmental and human health impact is similar to that of their predecessor.The same goes for phthalates.The European Union and the United States have restricted the use of some phthalates, such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and di-butyl phthalate (DBP), in some commercial products.As a result, other plasticizers such as di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester (DINCH), and di(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DEHT) have entered up for grabs to replace them.It is necessary to have studies on the possible effects of these new compounds, and to be able to assess whether this replacement is safe or not.We must also reflect on the trail of all these toxic compounds in the so-called circular economy.To achieve a circular economy, we must be able to control pollution at all stages of a product's life cycle, including the recycling stage.The only drawback is that chemical compounds, such as BPA or phthalates, present in the different types of waste, can be released during the various recycling and recovery processes.Furthermore, they can also be present in products produced from recycled materials.Consequently, we must control their presence in all the materials that already contain them and that, when recycled, reintroduce these toxic compounds into our environment, again impacting our health.On the other hand, it must be considered that, when a product reaches a recycling plant, several years have passed since its manufacture, so often some chemical compounds permitted at that time are no longer permitted.This creates a problem for recycling plants, since it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to discriminate between the residues that a certain chemical compound contains and those that it does not.Therefore, it is necessary to advance in the labeling of commercial products.Producers should provide product labels containing information on all chemical additives present, in order to facilitate their discrimination at recycling plants.We can conclude that the new Waste Law is an important step forward in the protection of human health, but that there is still a long way to go to minimize the negative impacts on our health due to the presence of endocrine disruptors in commonly used materials. .Write an article and join a growing community of more than 144,800 academics and researchers from 4,355 institutions.Copyright © 2010–2022, The Conversation US, Inc.