BOSTON — Brenda Hampton first got here throughout the poisonous industrial compound PFAS after discovering that it was a part of the cocktail of contaminants contaminating the consuming water in her North Alabama neighborhood.
Hampton, who believes the contaminated water contributed to the kidney issues she and different residents undergo from, quickly discovered that the chemical substances have been present in one other supply close to her house: wrappers, packing containers and fast-food plates.
Realizing that her three daughters and eight grandchildren ate hamburgers and fries, she joined the nationwide combat in 2020 to ban PFAS from meals packaging.
“Everyone seems to be consuming quick meals. Quick meals is in every single place. No one has time to prepare dinner anymore,” mentioned Hampton, who teamed up with environmental well being advocacy group Poisonous-Free Future to spearhead a marketing campaign to petition final yr that collected almost 75,000 signatures. McDonald’s later introduced that it could take away PFAS from all of its packaging.
Well being and environmental teams are pushing dozens of quick meals corporations, grocery store chains and different stores to take away PFAS chemical substances from their packaging. Referred to as “perpetually chemical substances” for his or her persistence within the setting, they’ve been used for many years to forestall grease, water, and different liquids from seeping by way of wrappers, packing containers, and baggage.
Opponents of the observe argue that the packaging poses a hazard to each customers and the setting, because the waste leads to landfills. composted or incinerated the place chemical substances can leach into groundwater or soil. They preserve that there are safer options.
A number of teams have argued that many main manufacturers use packaging with PFAS, and that exams typically confirmed extraordinarily excessive ranges.
A 2017 examine by the Massachusetts-based nonprofit analysis group Silent Spring Institute discovered PFAS in almost half of paper wrappers and 20% of packing containers from 27 fast-food retailers. Exams performed by Poisonous-Free Future in 2018 produced comparable outcomes. And, this yr, Client Reviews discovered that eight eating places, together with McDonald’s, Burger King and Cava, had packaging that had greater than 100 components per million of fluorine, indicating the possible presence of PFAS.
“One of many issues is that, particularly with the pandemic, we have seen this big improve in meals packaging, supply and takeout,” mentioned Sheela Sathyanarayana, a professor of pediatrics on the College of Washington and the Institute of Seattle Youngsters’s Analysis whose 2021 examine publication discovered 16 totally different PFAS chemical substances in moms’ breast milk.
“We now have a a lot, a lot larger potential for publicity to some of these chemical substances for everybody within the inhabitants, not simply sure segments of the inhabitants,” he mentioned. “Mainly, consuming or consuming is among the greatest sources of publicity.”
Tom Flanagin, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, mentioned his group helps the Meals and Drug Administration’s settlement with a number of producers to voluntarily part out some PFAS chemical substances utilized in substances utilized to meals packaging. However his group opposes what he described as “unscientific ‘one measurement suits all’ restrictions on all the class of PFAS chemical substances.”
“The mere presence of PFAS doesn’t point out a well being threat,” Flanagin mentioned. “Not all PFAS are created equal. Particular person chemical substances have totally different makes use of, in addition to environmental and well being profiles.”
Research have linked PFAS publicity to an elevated threat of most cancers, developmental delays in kids, harm to organs such because the liver and thyroid, elevated levels of cholesterol, and diminished immune perform, particularly amongst younger kids, in response to the US Environmental Safety Company
Much less studied are the well being hazards of PFAS in packaging, the place the chemical substances give the fabric a reflective sheen.
A 2019 examine by the Silent Spring Institute discovered that individuals who ate at house had decrease ranges of PFAS of their blood on common than those that ate quick meals or ate extra often at eating places, together with pizza locations. FDA rodent research additionally discovered that some PFAS chemical substances in greaseproof paper can bioaccumulate within the physique.
Nevertheless, there’s little steering on what ranges of PFAS in meals packaging, if any, are doubtlessly dangerous.
The EPA solely units a voluntary well being advisory stage of 70 components per billion for 2 PFAS chemical substances in consuming water. The FDA, which regulates the usage of sure PFAS chemical substances in meals packaging, launched a three-year voluntary phase-out program in 2020. The company is reviewing a petition from environmental teams calling for a ban on PFAS in meals packaging.
Within the US, solely California units a restrict of 100 components per million for whole fluoride in meals packaging.
The absence of federal requirements has moved the combat over PFAS in meals packaging to state legislatures.
California, Washington, Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and New York have handed payments that ban PFAS from being intentionally added to meals packaging, in response to the advocacy group Safer States.
Seven different states are contemplating comparable laws. Federal laws has additionally been launched.
In Vermont, the push to ban PFAS in packaging was impressed by findings that the chemical substances had contaminated a few of the state’s consuming water. Consequently, the legislature handed a invoice final yr that bans PFAS and different chemical substances, together with bisphenols and phthalates, from meals packaging, in addition to carpet, ski wax and foam to fight fires.
“Most individuals simply take a look at the tissue paper round their sandwich and assume I’ve my sandwich. However the actuality is that the coating on that sandwich paper is PFAS,” mentioned the invoice’s creator, Democratic state Sen. Ginny Lyons. “It is not a whole lot of chemical, however in the event you eat a whole lot of sandwich wraps and use a whole lot of paper plates over time, that chemical builds up within the physique and may trigger most cancers or different issues.”
The laws have coincided with bans introduced by a few of the largest eating places and retailers.
Fourteen fast-casual restaurant chains with a complete of almost 124,000 shops and greater than $203.2 billion in annual gross sales have dedicated to eradicating PFAS from their meals packaging, in response to Poisonous-Free Future. Amongst them are McDonald’s, Starbucks and Entire Meals. Restaurant Manufacturers Worldwide, which owns Burger King, Popeyes and Tim Horton, additionally plans to part out PFAS.
“If there are dangerous chemical substances in meals packaging, folks perceive that these chemical substances can migrate into meals,” mentioned Mike Schade, who leads Poisonous-Free Future’s market transformation work. “That is one thing that actually resonates with customers.”
Not one of the corporations have referenced well being issues when saying their PFAS bans. As a substitute, most both expressed a need to make use of sustainable packaging or mentioned a ban was the suitable factor to do. A Entire Meals spokesperson mentioned many elements influenced his determination, together with that PFAS was a “persistent environmental pollutant.”
The problem now shall be for these corporations to seek out safer options. Environmental teams are urging corporations to change to safer options, comparable to uncoated paper, bamboo or plastic derived from corn starch or sugar cane, and different coatings together with biowax or clay.
Washington should first discover safer options earlier than the state’s ban takes impact within the subsequent two years. Their evaluations discovered that there are options to all takeout containers.
“Producers can exchange PFAS of their meals packaging, which is able to shield folks and the setting from these dangerous chemical substances,” mentioned Lauren Tamboer, spokeswoman for the Washington Division of Ecology.
———
Observe Michael Casey on Twitter: @mcasey1
