Most of us obsess over ingredient lists and “clean” labels, but almost no one looks at the inks on the box, the label, or the inner liner. That’s a problem, because those inks—and other chemicals in packaging—don’t always stay where they’re printed. They can migrate into your food in tiny amounts you’ll never see, smell, or taste.
Regulators know this, labs test for it, and food brands quietly worry about it. Yet the hidden story of food‑packaging ink and chemical migration rarely makes it into mainstream wellness conversations. If you care about long‑term health, it probably should.
What Is “Ink Migration” and Why Should You Care?
“Ink migration” is the technical term for what happens when chemicals from printing inks, coatings, or labels move out of packaging and into the food.
This can happen with:
- Cardboard cartons and recycled paperboard
- Flexible plastic films and pouches
- Paper labels stuck on jars, cans, and even directly on fruit skins
A 2026 technical guide explains it bluntly:
“Food packaging ink migration happens when chemicals from printing inks, labels, or coatings move from the packaging into the food… Studies show up to 211–224 different substances can migrate, some exceeding FDA and EU limits for safe food contact materials.”
A 2025 scientific review on packaging and chemical migration adds that the widespread use of packaging has led to increased chemical migration, posing “significant risks to food safety and public health” if not managed properly.
Why this matters:
- These substances include mineral oil hydrocarbons, photoinitiators, plasticizers (like phthalates), and other small molecules that can act as endocrine disruptors or potential carcinogens at certain levels.
- Migration has been documented in dry foods stored in recycled cardboard (e.g., cereals, rice, pasta), in oily foods (like chocolate, nuts, vegetable oils), and even in fresh produce from adhesive labels.
You don’t see any of this on the ingredients list—but your body still has to deal with it.
How Packaging Ink Chemicals Get Into Food
Ink and coating chemicals can migrate through three main pathways:
- Set‑off migration
- Printed surfaces touch unprinted surfaces (like the food‑contact side of a wrapper) when stacked or rolled.
- Ink components transfer by contact, then move into food.
- Diffusion / penetration
- Small, mobile molecules slowly diffuse through porous materials like paper, board, or some plastics.
- This is particularly relevant for recycled paperboard cartons and some thin films.
- Gas‑phase migration
- Volatile compounds (solvents, photoinitiators, certain hydrocarbons) evaporate and recondense on the food surface without direct contact.
- This can happen in closed packages where vapours accumulate.
A landmark 2013 study stored various dry foods (like rice, couscous, and breakfast cereals) in industrially packed recycled paperboard for up to nine months and measured migration:
- Mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) migrated directly from board into food at 30–52 mg/kg after 9 months—up to 80% of the paperboard’s medium‑volatility MOSH content.
- Mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH), which include potentially carcinogenic compounds, migrated at 5.5–9.4 mg/kg.
- Nine different photoinitiators (from UV‑cured inks/coatings) were present in the paperboard; eight migrated into foods at up to 24% of their original amount.
- Butyl phthalate plasticizers also migrated significantly—up to 40% of diisobutyl phthalate and 20% of dibutyl phthalate moved into the food.
More than half of this migration happened in the first 2 months of storage.
That’s the kind of “invisible ingredient” you never signed up for.
The Big Players: Mineral Oil Hydrocarbons, Photoinitiators & Phthalates
Mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOSH & MOAH)
Mineral oils used in printing inks, lubricants, and recycling streams can be broadly split into:
- MOSH – Mineral Oil Saturated Hydrocarbons
- MOAH – Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons
MOSH:
- Tend to accumulate in human tissues, especially the liver, spleen, and lymph nodes.
- So far, they haven’t been clearly linked to acute toxicity, but their long‑term health effects remain uncertain; EFSA considers them a concern because of tissue accumulation.
MOAH:
- Are of higher toxicological concern. EFSA has identified MOAH compounds with three or more aromatic rings as genotoxic and carcinogenic.
- The EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SC PAFF) in 2022 set maximum levels for MOAH in food, leading to dozens of product recalls for excessive MOAH contamination.
According to a 2025 testing overview:
- High‑risk foods found to contain MOSH/MOAH include vegetable oils, stock cubes, nuts and seeds, cereals, baby food, chocolate products, and dairy.
- High‑risk packaging sources include recycled paper and board, printing inks, waxes, and process lubricants.
In other words: your “clean” chocolate‑coated nuts in a cute recycled carton may be a MOH exposure pathway.
Photoinitiators from UV-curable inks and coatings
UV‑curable inks and coatings are popular in modern packaging because they cure quickly and are marketed as low‑solvent, “green” technologies. But they rely on photoinitiators (PIs)—molecules that generate free radicals under UV to harden the ink.
A 2019 review on photoinitiators in food packaging notes:
- UV inks contain PIs like benzophenones, thioxanthones, amine co‑initiators, and phosphine oxides.
- When exposed to UV, these PIs not only trigger polymerisation but can also form photolytic decomposition products—small, mobile molecules with high migration potential.
- Many of these PIs and their breakdown products have been detected in food packaging and in the food itself at low µg/kg–mg/kg levels.
A Canadian study analysing 25 photoinitiators in packaging and indoor dust found:
- 24 different PIs in food packaging materials, with total concentrations ranging from 122 to 44,113 ng/g (geometric mean 3,375 ng/g).
- The same PIs and their transformation products also showed up in indoor dust, indicating broader environmental spread.
These compounds aren’t fully characterised toxicologically yet, but some benzophenone‑type PIs have raised concerns as possible endocrine disruptors and carcinogens in animal studies.
Phthalates and other plasticizers
Phthalates are used as plasticizers in some inks, adhesives, and flexible plastics. They’re already known for:
- Endocrine‑disrupting properties – linked to altered testosterone, reproductive issues, and developmental effects in animal and human studies.
- Widespread presence in food from multiple sources, including packaging, processing equipment, and environmental contamination.
The 2013 recycled board study showed significant migration of butyl phthalates from the board into foods over time. Other investigations have shown phthalates migrating from:
- Adhesive labels on fruit into the fruit itself
- Packaging adhesives and inks into various foods
In short: the phthalate problem isn’t just about plastic toys and bottles; it includes the adhesives and inks wrapped around your food.
How Common Is Food Packaging Poisoning?
It’s not rare.
The 2026 ink‑migration guide reports that a 2023 survey found 88% of paper and board food‑contact materials showed migration of at least one target chemical. A 2025 review summarises multiple monitoring campaigns and concludes:
- Chemical migration from packaging is widespread across food categories, especially dry goods, oily foods, and products with long storage in contact with printed or recycled materials.
- Packaging and other food‑contact materials are now recognised as major contributors to overall dietary exposure to several contaminant families, including MOSH/MOAH, PIs, phthalates, and other non‑intentionally added substances (NIAS).
The EU’s Food Safety Catalogue explicitly lists mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOH) as a contaminant category, noting that MOH may enter food via packaging, processing aids, and environmental sources. The fact that Brussels is writing dedicated guidance around MOSH/MOAH tells you this is not fringe.
What Does Food Packaging Poisoning Mean for Your Health?
The science on long‑term, low‑dose exposure is still evolving, but several trends are clear:
- MOAH with three+ aromatic rings are considered genotoxic and carcinogenic. Regulatory goal: as low as reasonably achievable.
- MOSH accumulate in human tissues; long‑term toxicity is not fully understood, so EFSA treats them as a concern while more data emerge.
- Certain phthalates are established endocrine disruptors and are restricted in many applications; others remain under review.
- Photoinitiators and their by‑products have incomplete toxicological profiles, but early work suggests some may have endocrine or genotoxic potential, prompting precautionary regulation and reformulation efforts.
A 2025 review on packaging and chemical migration notes that chronic, low‑dose exposure to mixtures of these substances may contribute to:
- Hormone‑related disorders
- Reproductive and developmental problems
- Certain cancers
- Metabolic disruption
The key word is contribute: packaging inks are one piece of a larger exposure puzzle that includes personal‑care products, house dust, air pollution, and other consumer goods.
What Industry Is Doing To Stop Food Packaging Poisoning (and What Still Needs Work)
The packaging and printing industries are not ignoring this; there’s real movement toward “low‑migration” systems:
- Development of low‑migration inks and coatings with larger, less mobile molecules and fewer hazardous additives.
- Use of functional barriers (like high‑barrier films or PET layers) to prevent migration from recycled board into food.
- Migration testing using GC‑MS (for volatile migrants) and LC‑MS/MS (for non‑volatiles) to verify compliance.
- Reverse printing for flexible films (ink is on the outside layer, not facing the food).
But gaps remain:
- There is still no single, harmonised EU regulation specifically for MOSH/MOAH in all food‑contact materials; instead there are recommendations and country‑level guidance values, with full regulation under discussion.
- Many small and mid‑sized food producers are unaware of packaging‑origin contamination, focusing mostly on ingredients and microbiological safety.
- Testing often focuses on a limited set of known migrants; NIAS (non‑intentionally added substances), including breakdown products, are much harder to catalogue and regulate.
How You Can Reduce Your Exposure To Food Packaging Poisoning
You can’t avoid packaging entirely, and you don’t need to. But you can tilt your habits to reduce unnecessary exposure.
1. Prioritise minimally packaged foods
- Buy fresh produce, bulk grains, and legumes where practical.
- Transfer dry foods from printed boxes into glass jars or tight containers at home—this reduces ongoing migration over months.
- Use your own containers for bulk where stores allow it.
2. Be mindful with high-risk combinations
Migration is higher when you combine:
- Recycled paperboard + long storage + fatty/dry foods (e.g., cereals, rice, chocolate, baking mixes).
- Oily foods (chocolate spreads, nut butters, oils) in printed, non‑barrier packaging.
If you have the choice, favour:
- Foods in glass, metal, or high‑barrier plastics designed for direct food contact, especially for fatty products.
- Products where the food doesn’t directly touch printed or recycled board (e.g., inner bag + outer box can be better when the bag is a true barrier).
3. Don’t fetishize recycled paper for direct food contact
This one’s counterintuitive:
- Recycled board is great for the environment in many ways—but for direct food contact, it’s a key source of MOSH/MOAH and ink‑derived contaminants, because printing inks and mineral oils from previous uses end up in the fibre mix.
Look for:
- Recycled boxes with inner barriers (like PET or high‑barrier films) when they’re used for food.
- Or unprinted, food‑grade paper for direct wrapping when needed.
4. Support brands that talk openly about packaging safety
If a brand mentions:
- Use of low‑migration or food‑grade inks
- MOSH/MOAH testing or general contaminant testing for packaging
- Compliance with EU or FDA food‑contact material standards beyond the basics
…that’s a good sign they’re taking ink migration seriously.
As consumer awareness grows, this kind of transparency will likely become more common.
The Real “Hidden Story” Here
The hidden story of food‑packaging ink isn’t that every boxed food is toxic, or that you must panic about eating cereal. It’s that:
- Chemical migration from packaging is real, measurable, and common, especially from recycled fibre and certain printed materials.
- Some migrants—particularly MOAH, some phthalates, and certain photoinitiators—are toxicologically concerning enough that major regulators are moving to clamp down.
- “Clean” branding on ingredients says nothing about what happens at the ink–food interface.
From a health perspective, you’ll gain the most by:
- Eating a varied, mostly whole‑food diet, which naturally dilutes any single exposure source.
- Avoiding long‑term storage of oily or dry foods directly in low‑grade, printed, or recycled packaging when you have alternatives.
- Supporting policy and brands that treat packaging safety as part of food safety—not an afterthought.
When you zoom out, the story of packaging ink is really the story of how deeply industrial chemistry has woven itself into the food system—and how, with a mix of better regulation, better design, and slightly smarter consumer habits, we can keep the convenience without so much invisible collateral.
Sources
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12096275 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23656414/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12096275/
