When you grab a fast food burger and chips or a bowl of cereal at a restaurant, you’ll probably think more about the food you’re about to eat than the package in which it’s provided.
But a new report shows that some food packaging (burger boxes, packaging, disposable bowls and fried bags, appearance plates and desserts) used in popular restaurants like McDonald’s, Sweetgreen and Wendy’s may involve potentially harmful PFAS chemicals. These chemicals prevent grease and oil from leaking through the packaging.
The report comes from Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit group, and the Mind the Store campaign, an initiative of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. They found that almost a portion of the tested foods, at least one six-chain item, arrived here in packages that had been processed with PFAS.
PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyls) are called “chemicals forever” because they are indestructible to the maximum. There are only about 5,000 types and the maximum have not been studied closely. Many of them have been linked to the adverse effects of fitness, adding a decrease in fertility, hormonal changes, high cholesterol, a weakened immune formula response, an increased threat of safe cancers and low birth weight in infants.
As our wisdom about the fitness effects of PFAS evolves, it is imperative to perceive how they enter our bodies and surrounding areas, where they can contaminate crops and aquatic materials, says Tunde Akinleye, Program Manager at Consumer Reports Food Protection. Division. “Given the widespread use of PFAS and the new toxicity evidence of many compounds in this class,” he says, “the desire to identify exposure resources cannot be overestimated.”
The presence of PFAS in food packaging would probably not seem at first of all problematic for consumers, says Graham Peaslee, Ph.D., professor of experimental nuclear physics and chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame, who has conducted studies on FOOD PFAS. Packing. That’s because, after all, “you don’t eat the packaging,” he says.
However, the PFAS finds its way to our bodies. Studies involving others over the age of 12 in the U.S. population. They have been detected in almost every other person evaluated.
Direct migration from packaging to food is an imaginable means of exposure, says Dr. Leonardo Trasande, director of the Center for Environmental Risk Research at New York University and writer of “Sicker, Fatter, Poorer” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019). Some studies have shown that other people who cook at home more occasionally may have lower levels of PFAS in their bodies.
But these chemicals are also used in a wide variety of products, such as some non-stick pans, sealing appliances and fire foams, and are used to make stain-resistant carpets and fabrics. The manufacture, use and disposal of these products, as well as food packaging, can contribute to exposure, either directly or by environmental contamination.
PFAS in food containers accumulates in the vicinity and in drinking water and food because of what happens when we throw this container, Peaslee says. Once in landfills, chemicals can migrate freely and become our food and water supply.
According to Peaslee and the report’s authors, there are opportunities for PFAS for all these types of packaging, which means that chains may be transferred to less problematic products.
But corporations want to be careful not to move from a known problematic PFAS to another PFAS we know less about, Says Trasande. That’s why he, with a number of scientists who think that instead of trying to regulate one through one of the thousands of similar chemicals, they deserve to be regulated and banned from certain uses as a class.
“If not, we’re going to go through decades and settle down with a whole generation of other people affected by those chemicals, only to find out later that, wow, we made a mistake,” he says.
In January 2020, the authors of the new report collected 38 food packaging samples from six fast food or fast food chains at 16 sites in 3 states and Washington, D.C., an independent laboratory analyzed the samples.
The lab looked for chemical fluoride in the sample. Fluoride is a key component of any type of PFAS, so it’s not an unusual way to verify those compounds, Peaslee explains.
Measuring the fluoride content does not tell you which PFAS compounds have been used or how much of a chemical is present, however, it is “a reliable way of whether a food packaging curtain has been treated with PFAS,” Akinleye explains.
There was little fluoride in the maximum testing of burger and sandwich packages, an improvement over a 2017 study co-written through Peaslee, which found that nearly 40% of the 138 tested packages contained PFAS.
The only hamburger wrapper that appeared to have been treated with PFAS Burger King’s Whopper. McDonald’s Big Mac clamshell container also gave the impression of being treated with PFAS. Paper bags used for fries, looks plates or desserts on any of the chains contained high enough degrees of fluoride to involve pFAS treatment, as did a paper bag for Wendy’s dessert.
In the most health-oriented chains, CAVA, Freshii and Sweetgreen, each bowl or tray of molded fiber contained fluoride, indicating a PFAS treatment, infrequently nine or ten times higher than the threshold used by the report researchers. These packaging, which is used instead of plastic, are infrequently advertised as compostables, giving consumers the concept that they are environmentally friendly. But PFAS does not decompose and can contaminate the environment.
“The use of PFAS is not going to be sustainable,” Peaslee says. “If chains really want to be eco-friendly, they should switch to PFAS-free bowls.”
CR asked restaurant representatives if its packaging contained PFAS and, if so, whether there were plans to update it with non-PFAS materials.
Three restaurants responded: CAVA, Freshii and McDonald’s. CAVA stated that it committed to dispose of PFAS in its packaging until mid-2021. Freshii said he planned to deploy bowls without PFAS “in early 2021, if not before.” McDonalds said it has eliminated giant PFAS catepassries, but that “we know there is more progress in the industry and we are exploring opportunities with our supplier partners to move further forward.”
Burger King, Wendy’s and Sweetgreen responded to our request for comment.
(In March, Sweetgreen announced plans to be PFAS-free until the end of 2020).
The length of the pattern for this exam is giant enough to tell how widespread the use of PFAS is, Peaslee says, but the test is helping to show that PFAS in food packaging remains a concern, especially for bowls and fiber trays.
Several other studies over the past 3 years have discovered PFAS in rapid food packaging, which has helped stimulate the market and regulatory changes. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now bans some PFAS chemicals from food packaging. Maine and Washington have followed PFAS restrictions on packaging, as have cities like San Francisco and Berkeley. The New York State Legislature recently approved similar restrictions, the bill was not signed by the governor.
“There have been a lot of market adjustments” over the past two years, says Erika Schreder, Scientific Director of Toxic-Free Future and the report. “We looked to take a look at some of the most productive fast food restaurants to see if they had been replaced or if the PFAS was still widely used. In fact, it’s disappointing that they’re still serving food in packages containing PFAS.”
I’m a science journalist who writes about fitness for Consumer Reports. I’m interested in locating tactics that other people can exercise and report systems, businesses, and policies that disclose unnecessary harm to patients. As a parent, I spend most of my free time looking to stay with a little boy, but I also enjoy exploring the outdoors whenever I can. Follow me on Twitter (@kevloria).