EFSA Updates Its Risk Assessment of Brominated Flame Retardants in Food

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published an updated assessment of emerging and novel brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in food. The scientific opinion, published on 27 July 2026, examines new information on 27 chemicals that can enter the food chain after being used in products designed to resist fire.

BFRs are not cooking ingredients. They are industrial chemicals used in products such as plastics, textiles and electrical equipment. Because some of these substances persist in the environment, they can move through air, soil and water before reaching animal feed and food. EFSA says they are found mainly in foods of animal origin, including fish, meat, milk and derived products.

What EFSA assessed

The European Commission asked EFSA to update an earlier assessment from 2012. The new work combines scientific information with food-occurrence data collected since the previous opinion. By September 2025, EFSA had received 2,833 analytical results covering eight BFRs, with samples taken between 2010 and 2025. The panel also reviewed toxicological studies, regulatory information and published exposure estimates.

The assessment was not a single laboratory test of one food or one brand. It was a wider risk assessment covering hazards, possible dietary exposure and the quality of available evidence. EFSA also considered comments submitted during a targeted consultation held from 28 April to 18 May 2026.

The main findings

For three substances—BEH-TEBP, EH-TBB and DBDPE—EFSA concluded that the available estimates of dietary exposure do not raise a health concern. The panel said the certainty of most reported conclusions was at least 90 percent.

That conclusion does not apply automatically to every BFR. For several substances, the available information was too limited to complete a full risk characterisation. EFSA could not derive health-based guidance values for any of the 27 chemicals because the evidence was not sufficient to establish those values.

The opinion also identifies specific hazards in the evidence available. TDBPP, DBPNG and TBNPA were considered genotoxic and carcinogenic. DBE-DBCH was considered genotoxic based on positive laboratory mutagenicity findings. Other substances had too little information to support a firm conclusion about their genotoxic potential, exposure or long-term effects.

Why the food chain matters

The update is relevant to everyday food because it follows contaminants beyond the products in which they were originally used. Once BFRs enter the environment, they can be transported into the food chain. Fish, meat, dairy products and foods made from them therefore form part of the monitoring picture, even though consumers do not add BFRs during preparation.

EFSA’s findings also show why a food-safety assessment cannot rely on a single number or a single cooking method. Exposure data were available for only some substances, and the panel noted that important information is still missing. The gaps include measured levels in food, biomonitoring data, genotoxicity studies and toxicological research needed to establish reference points.

What this means for home cooks

There is no new household cooking temperature, storage rule or preparation technique in this EFSA update. It is a scientific assessment for food-safety decision-making, not a product recall and not a recipe for removing contaminants at home. The announcement does not identify a particular food brand, batch or ingredient that consumers should discard.

For now, the practical takeaway is to read this update as a monitoring and risk-assessment development rather than as a reason to change how a meal is cooked. Continue to follow existing food-safety instructions from local authorities, use reliable recall notices when they apply and avoid treating cooking as a proven way to control environmental contaminants unless an authority specifically provides that advice.

The next step

EFSA says the assessment of individual BFR families will be followed by work on whether a combined approach is appropriate for mixtures of these chemicals. That matters because people may encounter more than one substance through the environment and diet. The panel has also recommended further research to close the evidence gaps, particularly around food occurrence, human biomonitoring and toxicological effects.

The full EFSA topic briefing and the scientific opinion provide the technical detail behind the update. Until further evidence is available, the clearest message is measured rather than alarming: three assessed substances did not raise a health concern at the dietary exposures EFSA could evaluate, while several others still require better data before firm conclusions can be made.