Health activists urge Burger King to combat toxic chemical packaging as restaurant promises solutions

21 Jun 2021 --- Burger King’s parent company Restaurant Brands International (RBI) is coming under fire from public health advocates after promising to address the issue of toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in its food packaging “within the next few months.”

Critics are accusing the company of failing to act urgently and continuing to expose consumers to chemicals linked with cancer, decreased fertility and COVID-19 vulnerability. 

Speaking to PackagingInsights, Mind the Store’s campaign director Mike Schade says Burger King is falling behind its competitors. 

“Other chains are acting relatively fast. In March of 2020, both Sweetgreen and Chipotle announced they would phase out PFAS in less than a year. Retailers may face substantial financial and regulatory risks that can be associated with PFAS. Fast-food giants like Burger King must get out in front of the regulatory curve and ban these unnecessary toxic chemicals. ”

“For companies that are looking to transition, of course, they need to consider both the cost and the performance of the alternatives. While that may take some time to assess, other businesses have been successful in transitioning to alternatives.”

Looking for replacements 
At an annual shareholder meeting last week, José Cil, RBI’s CEO, said the corporation’s procurement and brand teams are actively looking for a non-toxic replacement substance for PFAS, which is currently used as a barrier to prevent liquid leakage. 

“There’s more work to be done in 2021 on this task, but results have been positive, and we plan to share more details in the next few months about our packaging roadmap as it relates to PFAS,” he stated. 

The roadmap is reportedly the first time Burger King leadership has actively addressed PFAS “forever chemicals” in its food packaging.

However, nonprofit groups Mind the Store campaign and Toxic-Free Future say the “disappointing” announcement fails to set any concrete roadmap or acknowledge that alternative materials already exist. 

PFAS has been linked with a range of serious diseases.“Our testing last year found Burger King also serves burgers in PFAS-free wrappers, which shows they’ve already found alternatives,” says Erika Schreder, science director at Toxic-Free Future.

“Burger King shouldn’t be using this toxic packaging – they owe it to their customers to serve food in safe packaging.”

Policy failures 
PFAS comprises a broad range of chemicals, some of which are prohibited in the US by the Food and Drug Administration. 

However, many varieties of PFAS remain legal for use in packaging, despite government action against them in other countries. Denmark, for example, banned all PFAS in cardboard and paper in July last year. 

Last August, Toxic-Free Future launched a campaign called Meet Polluted Polly to spread awareness of the issue, emphasizing that PFAS are “forever chemicals” due to their persistence and mobility. Rather than breaking down easily, they travel through water and soil, posing a threat to human health. 

The campaign is drawing attention to how corporations like RBI have been supporting the use of PFAS for decades as an easy solution to grease barriers.

In a study published last year, four of six major food chains were found to have no policy addressing the use of PFAS.

The plastic ban problem 
A central cause of PFAS prevalence lies in the phase-out of single-use plastics. Manufacturers are seeking barrier solutions for fiber-based packaging applications that can mimic the protection afforded by plastics.

The EU’s Single-Use Plastics Directive will take effect on July 3, banning popular throwaway plastic items like straws, cutlery, plates and beverage cups and containers made of EPS.

This year, the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) conducted tests on single-use tableware like disposable plant fiber bowls, paper straws and palm leaf plates, finding wide use of toxic chemicals. 

A BEUC expert previously told PackagingInsights urgent legislation is needed to aid the transition away from single-use plastics and ensure that alternative solutions do not carry new threats to environmental and human health. 

By Louis Gore-Langton