Views: 0 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2024-08-13 Origin: Site
A comprehensive guide to everything you need to know about PFAS in food packaging and how you can transition to more sustainable options with Sumkoka.
According to findings by EarthJustice, over 97% of US citizens have PFAS in their bodies, with a large share of that coming from food packaging and containers. PFAS in food packaging has become a serious point of contention for consumers and businesses alike.
Here, we'll take a look at some of the serious risks that these forever chemicals cause to both humans and to the environment, as well as why companies still use them. In the end, we'll see how your company can move past using these types of food packaging with more sustainable alternatives.
The EPA describes PFAS as a group of manufactured chemicals used in a range of food packaging materials for its resistance to grease and water. While these chemicals can make handling foods much easier, they also pose a serious threat to the human body.
With the use of these chemicals starting back in the 1940s, various companies have used containers or wrappings that include these chemicals. According to CHEM Trust, pizza boxes and wrapping paper for other foods like burgers and fries are some of the most common examples of companies using PFAS.
Despite the many benefits that come with using PFAS in food containers, the real cost of these chemicals depends on how they affect the human body. Understanding the risks that they can pose to human health brings us closer to understanding why companies are moving away from food packaging that uses PFAS.
The Centers for Disease Control collected results from ongoing research on the effects of PFAS on the body to find that these chemicals can affect the body in various ways. These include an increase in kidney and testicular cancer, reduced response to some vaccines, increased cholesterol levels, and changes to enzymes in the liver.
The senior strategic director of health and food at the NRDC, Erik D. Olson, explains that these chemicals can attach to food. Since they don't break down through regular means in the body, they tend to travel through the body and damage various organs, especially the liver and kidneys.
In one study, researchers found that exposure to PFAS can lead to delays in puberty for girls. This produces a domino effect of serious health concerns, including a higher risk of developing breast cancer. Another study found that increased exposure to PFAS can result in an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in women.
These are just some of the risks associated with using PFAS in food packaging, but another way that this can affect companies is a lack of confidence. As consumers become more aware of the risks associated with these chemicals, many choose to opt out of the products that these companies provide. Therefore, if consumers find out that a company is using PFAS in their food packaging, they’re more likely to find alternatives that use more sustainable means.
Unfortunately, the negative effects of PFAS extend to the environment, making it possible for the contamination to spread to other people. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources shed light on how contamination of PFAS can reach the soil and sources for drinking water.
Disposing of objects that contain PFAS, such as food containers and wrappers, can be very difficult, as it doesn't degrade through natural means. So, if people litter in lakes or dispose of these containers near sources of drinking water, these can quickly become contaminated.
Another way that PFAS can contaminate water supplies is through improperly treated sewage. According to the Food and Water Watch, these forever chemicals can lead to sludge and make their way to groundwater supplies. And since most sewage treatment plants don't take specific measures to reduce PFAS in the water, this can reach humans and farm animals alike.
Farms have especially faced trouble with PFAS contamination, as the water that reaches cows and other animals is often laced with these chemicals. This, in turn, makes it all the more likely for the contaminants to pass on to humans when they eat beef or chicken.
Along with polluting the air and water, PFA chemicals can also make their way to soil and fertile ground. This can either be directly from littering, pollutants in the air settling on land, or them spreading through the water supply. Either way, this can be very dangerous for any plants that grow from that soil.
Research published in Science Direct found that soil contaminated with PFAS can also spread to various plant species like wheat and maize. Wheat is possibly one of the most used ingredients in people's modern diets, and maize is a popular option for cow feed.
Unfortunately, PFAS have been around for a long time, and despite the serious health concerns that they have, companies are still using them. Granted, many companies could still be using PFAS in food packaging because they aren't aware of the very serious issues that come with using these chemicals. However, that's not the only reason why companies still use these chemicals, even if they cause a multitude of problems.
Possibly the most common reason why companies continue to use PFAS despite the universal negative sentiment from consumers is cost. Forever chemicals have been in production, in one form or another, since the 1940s. As a result, production methods are both well-established and optimized to ensure a lower cost of production.
The lower cost of production doesn't just incentivize PFAS in food packing, but it can be a necessity for some companies. The primary reason why they can even consider the lower costs over the general well-being of the environment and human health is because of lax regulations.
It might be surprising to hear that despite the serious threat that PFAS poses to people and the environment, PFAS regulation in food packaging has yet to keep up with its increased use. For instance, according to the NRDC, the EPA doesn't regulate how companies use PFAS or that they disclose its use.
More importantly, another reason for the lack of regulation, as Chemsec has pointed out, is that it's difficult to do so. PFAS isn't a single chemical. Instead, it's an umbrella term that includes over 4,500 variants of substance that more or less provide the same suite of benefits. In the early 80s, countries became aware of the dangerous side effects of substances like PFOA and PFOS and were quick to place bans on their use.
However, manufacturers were quick to make molecular varieties of the same substances, which makes it harder to enforce regulation, as all chemicals need to be regulated individually. But this strategy to evade regulation is on its last legs, as many international groups are working with lawmakers in different countries to regulate these chemicals as groups.
As we've discussed in great detail, PFAS in food packaging is very dangerous. Along with increasing various health risks, it can also stay in the body for years, and these pollutants can spread to other people and animals that haven't even come in contact with any food containers.
But even if regulation is still catching up with the continued popularity of PFAS in food packaging, companies can choose a multitude of alternatives to these forever chemicals. Whether you want to use paper in your food packaging or go completely eco-friendly, there are options that can even scale with your business. Here's a list of products with PFAS and their relevant alternatives.
Types of food packaging | Alternative Treatments | Paper Alternatives |
Wrappers | Bio-wax |
|
Boxes | Bio-wax |
|
Uncoated Clay | PLA | |
PLA | PLA | |
Bagasse Bamboo | Uncoated Clay | |
Uncoated Clay PLA | Bagasse Bamboo PLA |
The list above details all of the alternatives and is a reliable way how to avoid PFAS in food. Let's look at each of these materials in detail to see how they differ from PFAs.
●Uncoated: This is a more advanced mechanical process that compresses the fibers of paper-based utensils until they become grease-resistant.
●PLA: PLA, or polylactic acid, is a decomposable version of regular plastic containers usually made from corn.
●Bamboo: Instead of using paper, manufacturers will create disposable and sustainable cutlery using thin sheets of bamboo.
●Clay: Manufacturers will apply a clay coating to paper-based cutlery to make it resistant to grease.
●Bio-wax: This is layered on other types of sustainable cutlery to improve their overall resistance to grease and water while being easier to decompose.
●Bagasse: Bagasse food packing comes from the byproduct of sugarcane. They're highly versatile, as manufacturers can weave them into all sorts of plates, trays, spoons, forks, straws, and much more. Its versatility is also complemented by its better water, grease, and heat resistance compared to other sustainable options.
Research surrounding PFAS consistently shows that it is a dangerous contaminant, with its downsides far outweighing any benefits that it has to offer. From negatively affecting various organs in the body to staying in the body for years and contaminating the surrounding environment, it is essential that companies move past these PFAS in food packaging.
Fortunately, with legislation and regulation starting to catch up with these forever chemicals, companies have more alternatives available than before. Paper-based alternatives can scale with business needs, and more sustainable options like bagasse are readily available; it's as good a time as any to switch to these more sustainable food packing alternatives.
Sumoka offers premium biodegradable and sustainable food packaging options to businesses looking to distance themselves from plastic containers laced with PFAS. We offer a range of containers, plates, and trays made from bagasse, a byproduct of sugarcane.
Our products are grease and water-resistant while being microwave-safe. Of course, these are just some of the advantages of using our bagasse containers. You can also get samples of all of our products before you commit to placing a big order.
So contact us today, and let Sumoka help your company start its journey to sustainability.
