Heavy Metal Index
Ask the IndexAboutIndex Pro

Preliminary estimation of undesired substances in diapers

Cite this pageVersion history

Overview

This is the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) Communication No. 005/2019 of 01 March 2019, in which the BfR provides a preliminary, partial evaluation of the findings reported in the 23 January 2019 ANSES opinion Sécurité des couches pour bébé (Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the safety of baby diapers (revised opinion, Request No 2017-SA-0019)). The BfR communication is three pages and contains no original measurements; it is a national-agency commentary on a sibling national-agency opinion. The BfR explicitly states (p. 1) that “a complete and conclusive assessment is currently impossible, as important detailed information of technical nature is not available to the BfR” and that the BfR “cannot currently make a detailed estimation of the other substances mentioned in the [ANSES] report for which ANSES has prepared a health assessment.” The substances on which the BfR does opine are limited to: ubiquitous contaminants (dioxins and furans, dl-PCBs, PAHs), glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA, and contact-allergenic aromatic substances (perfumes). No heavy metal is named or evaluated in the BfR communication at any point. This page is ingested as out-of-core-scope regulatory-context evidence — it documents that as of March 2019 the German national risk-assessment agency had not surfaced any heavy-metal finding in its preliminary review of the diaper-safety question and had publicly deferred detailed evaluation of the ANSES report’s non-headline substances pending further technical information.

Key numbers

The BfR communication is qualitative throughout; no exposure doses, hazard quotients, or concentration values are reproduced from the ANSES report. The agency’s quantitative positions are limited to two statements:

  • Glyphosate and AMPA. “According to the exposure estimation in the ANSES report, the latest available knowledge indicates that the analysis values for glyphosate and/or the metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) do not constitute a health risk” (p. 2). This is the BfR endorsing the corresponding ANSES finding without independent numerical review.
  • Allergenic aromatic substances. “Potentially contact allergenic aromatic substances were detected in one of the 19 diaper products examined (ANSES, 2019)” (p. 2). Note that the BfR text cites “19 diaper products,” whereas the ANSES opinion itself reports tests on 23 single-use baby diaper products across SCL and INC programmes (see Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the safety of baby diapers (revised opinion, Request No 2017-SA-0019) Key numbers; cf. ANSES opinion p. 13). The BfR does not reconcile this difference; the most likely explanation is that the BfR is referring to the subset of products in which the specific fragrance-screening protocol was applied, but the communication does not state this explicitly.

Methods (brief)

  • Document type. BfR Communication (“BfR-Stellungnahme”), a public-facing risk-communication format used by the BfR to convey preliminary assessments and to comment on the assessments of other national or EU food/consumer-product agencies.
  • Scope of the evaluation. Preliminary and explicitly partial. The BfR limits its commentary to (i) ubiquitous contaminants (dioxins, furans, dl-PCBs, PAHs), (ii) glyphosate/AMPA, and (iii) contact-allergenic aromatic substances. The communication explicitly defers evaluation of the other substances mentioned in the ANSES opinion (p. 1).
  • Underlying data. All quantitative claims rest on the ANSES 2019 opinion (Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the safety of baby diapers (revised opinion, Request No 2017-SA-0019)); no primary measurements are presented.
  • Risk-assessment posture on contaminants. The BfR endorses the ANSES use of conservative (“worst-case”) exposure parameters as the methodological norm shared with the BfR’s own consumer-product assessments, and acknowledges that this conservatism tends toward overestimation of risk. The BfR characterises the ubiquitous-contaminant detections (dioxins, furans, dl-PCBs, PAHs) as expected at trace levels given modern analytical sensitivity and as not necessarily implying a health risk (p. 1).
  • Risk-assessment posture on allergens. The BfR notes that no specific German legal provisions exist for the use of contact-allergenic aromatic substances in disposable diapers (no use bans, no declaration obligations, in contrast to cosmetics under EU Regulation 1223/2009). The BfR’s recommendation is that “the aromatic substances that are banned from use in cosmetic products, or which have a high sensitisation potential, should not be used” in diapers where allergologically relevant skin contact may occur (p. 2). This is the BfR’s only positive recommendation in the communication.

Implications

  • Certification (HMTc): No direct contribution to the HMTc 10-analyte panel (Pb, total arsenic (tAs), cadmium (Cd), methylmercury (MeHg), total mercury (tHg), inorganic arsenic (iAs), nickel (Ni), aluminum (Al), hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI), Sn). For HMTc Cat 9 Row 7 (diapers and diaper components), this BfR communication is a confirmatory regulatory-context data point: a second EU national risk-assessment agency (Germany, alongside France via ANSES) reviewed the same underlying diaper-safety question in early 2019 and produced no heavy-metal finding requiring assessment. The BfR communication does not advance occurrence evidence for any specific metal, but it does narrow the inference space — if a heavy-metal hazard had been a salient signal in the ANSES dataset, a sibling national agency producing a public commentary three months later would have been expected to comment on it. Useful only as adjacent regulatory context, never as standards-setting evidence.
  • Courses: Useful for any HMTc Cat 9 module covering EU national-agency interactions, the structure of cross-agency risk-communication, or the contrast between food-contact materials (regulated under EU Reg. 1935/2004 / 1223/2009 with declaration obligations) and disposable-diaper materials (which have no analogous EU-wide regulatory framework for allergenic aromatic substances).
  • App: Not directly applicable.
  • Microbiome: Not addressed.

Update history

No substantive edit history is available in this build. The full commit record is available in git.

Referenced by