Revealed: the dangerous chemicals in your food wrappers

Independent testing of more than 100 packaging products from US restaurant and grocery chains identified PFAS chemicals in many of the wrappers, a Consumer Reports investigation has found.

The potentially dangerous “forever chemicals“werefound in food packaging including paper bags for french fries, wrappers for hamburgers, molded fiber salad bowls and single-use paper plates.

They were found in the packaging from every retailer CR looked at, including fast-food chains – such as Burger King and McDonald’s – and places that promote healthier fare, such as Cava and Trader Joe’s.

CR tested multiple samples of 118 food packaging products and found evidence of PFAS in more than half of those tested, while almost a third had levels beyond a threshold supported by CR experts and others.

In recent decades, PFAS exposure has been linked to a growing list of health problems, including immune system suppression, lower birth weight and increased risk for some cancers.

PFAS can be found not only in nonstick pans and waterproof gear but also in the grease-resistant packaging that holds food from takeout chains and supermarkets. A seemingly virtuous alternative to plastic, packaging made with PFAS often resembles paper or cardboard but salad dressing and fry oil do not leak through.

“We know that these substances migrate into food you eat,” said Justin Boucher, an environmental engineer at the Food Packaging Forum, a non-profit research organization based in Switzerland. “It’s clear, direct exposure.”

That’s especially likely when food is fatty, salty or acidic, according to a 2021 review in the journal Foods. Some research even suggests that PFAS levels are higher in people who regularly eat out.

Another concern: when packaging is tossed into the trash it can end up in landfills, and PFAS can contaminate water and soil, or it is incinerated, and PFAS can spread through the air.

Health and environmental advocates have been pushing for PFAS use to be restricted, especially in items such as food packaging. In response, some fast-food and fast-casual restaurants, as well as several grocery stores, say that they have taken steps to limit PFAS in their food packaging or that they plan to phase it out.

In CR’s tests the chemicals were also found in packaging from places that claimed to be moving away from PFAS, though those levels were often lower than at other retailers.“We know from our testing that it is feasible for retailers to use packaging with very low PFAS levels,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at CR. “So the good news is there are steps that companies can take now to reduce their use of these dangerous chemicals.”

Searching for PFAS

The first known PFASin the US was accidentally discovered in 1938 by a 27year-old chemist named Roy Plunkett and in the decades since it and related chemicals have been added to a wide variety of products to make them resistant to heat, water, oil and corrosion.

Today, these practically unbreakable compounds, created when the elements carbon and fluorine are fused, can be found in the air and the water, as well as in our bodies, our food, and our homes.

Identifying the exact type of PFAS in a product is complex: there are more than 9,000 known PFAS, yet common testing methods can identify only a couple dozen.

So CR tested products for their total organic fluorine content, which is considered the simplest way to assess a material’s total PFAS content. That’s because all PFAS contain organic fluorine, and there are few other sources of the compound, says Graham Peaslee, PhD, a professor of physics, chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who has studied PFAS in food packaging.

Another complication: PFAS is used so widely – found in ink on food containers, recycled paper, machines that make packaging and more – that it often shows up in products unintentionally.

Scientists and regulators are still debating what level of organic fluorine indicates intentional use. California has banned intentionally added PFAS; starting in January 2023, paper food packaging must have less than 100 parts per million organic fluorine. Denmark has settled on 20ppm as that threshold, a limit supported by CR’s experts as well.

“If they can get to 100ppm, they should be able to get to 20ppm,” Peaslee says. “Lower is always the ultimate goal.”

CR tested multiple samples of 118 products and calculated average organic fluorine levels for each. Overall, CR detected that element in more than half the food packaging tested. Almost a third – 37 products – had organic fluorine levels above 20ppm, and 22 were above 100ppm.

Among the 24 retailers CR looked at, nearly half had at least one product above that level, and most had one or more above 20ppm. But almost all also had products below that amount. For example, while the two products with the highest average levels came from Nathan’s, the chain also had four products below 20ppm. Nathan’s told CR that it was redoing its packaging and had eliminated the high-level items, as did Chick-fil-A, which had the item with the next highest level in CR’s tests.

The results of the tests are not representative of all the packaging from a retailer, and packaging may have changed since CR conducted them.

Putting PFAS claims to the test

CR looked at retailers that claimed to be phasing out PFAS, including Cava, Chipotle, Panera Bread, Sweetgreen, and Whole Foods Market.

All 13 of the products the companies said had reduced PFAS still had some detectable organic fluorine, and seven were above 20ppm. They ranged from a Whole Foods soup container with 21ppm organic fluorine – the only Whole Foods item to exceed the 20ppm limit – to a paper bag for pita chips from Cava with 260ppm.

In response to questions from CR, companies stressed that with PFAS so common in the environment, it’s almost impossible to eliminate them entirely. Sweetgreen, for example, said, “We may have trace amounts of fluorine in our bowls. Unfortunately, PFAS are a widespread problem and are present in everyday life from tap water to air to soil.” Whole Foods said the company “does not make PFAS-free claims but has strived to prevent intentionally added PFAS in packaging.” Panera and Chipotle also said their goal was to avoid packaging with intentionally added PFAS.

Cava said that supply chain problems had slowed its “transition to eliminating added PFAS.” The company said that it hoped to complete that process by the end of 2022 and that it had updated its public statements to reflect the new timeline.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at CR, acknowledges that trace amounts of PFAS in food packaging may be inevitable. And that’s why he says that “no company should tell consumers that their products are 100% free of PFAS.” But he also says CR’s tests show that getting to very low levels is possible and should be a goal for every company.

Protecting the next generation

Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at CR, and others say the federal government should regulate PFAS as a group. “Trying to ban individual PFAS is an impossible game of whack-a-mole,” he says. “As soon as one is addressed, industry comes up with another.”

The Environmental Protection Agency now has guidance levels on just two PFAS – PFOS and PFOA – and just in drinking water. And even those are too high, says Philippe Grandjean, a professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and an expert on PFAS health risks.

In addition, research from the EPA and elsewhere confirms that many newer PFAS chemicals, like their older cousins, will probably remain in the environment almost indefinitely and will pose health risks, especially to infants.

“The next generation is being exposed to these toxic compounds at the most vulnerable time period in their development,” Grandjean says.

Says Ronholm: “It’s long past time we got PFAS out of products, our water, and our food.”

Read Consumer Reports’ full investigation.

Consumer Reports action on ending PFAS in food wrappers

Testing for this project was supported by the Forsythia Foundation, which promotes healthier people and environments by reducing harmful chemicals in our lives.

***

Full Consumer Reports food packaging test results

These results show levels of total organic fluorine, a measure of PFAS, in 118 food packaging products gathered fromlarge fast-food and fast-casual restaurants, as well as supermarkets. PFAS

in food packaging have been linked to potential harms to human health and the environment. Products with two red squares have 100 parts per million organic fluorine or more. Starting next year, California will ban food packaging that exceeds that level. Products with one red square have 20ppm organic fluorine or more, a stricter standard for food packaging set by Denmark. CR supports that lower cutoff.