FOOD PROCESSING & PACKAGING
THE CASE FOR ELIMINATING PFAS
Max Smith, Solutions Consultant at EcoOnline, explains the importance of keeping workers safe from PFAS in food packaging and how safer alternatives can be introduced to the supply chain
chemicals,” is continuing to grow in the public consciousness. This includes harm to human health and contamination to the water and soil in our environment. After a 2024 study revealed that numerous common UK food items, including grapes, strawberries and cherries contain PFAS, CHEM Trust sent a letter urging the UK Parliament to address the concerning levels of PFAS found in foods. However, fewer conversations are being
A
had around how workers in the supply chain are exposed to PFAS. While consumers are exposed to PFAS through diet and contaminated drinking, occupational exposures are generally due to inhalation of PFAS through aerosols and even absorption through the skin. Equally, we must remember that workers themselves are consumers, and so their exposure levels are twofold.
The problem with PFAS in packaging The majority of disposable packaging from UK supermarkets and takeaway chains has been found to contain PFAS. Manufacturers value these compounds for their resistance to water and oil, leading to their use in items like fast food wrappers. This puts workers across the entire supply
chain, from chemical manufacturing, factory workers and even fast-food service workers, at risk of PFAS exposure. In a study examining five types of workers (manager, sorter, loader, driver and others), it was found that sorters had the highest level of PFAS as they were the group that had the most regular contact with PFAS – highlighting the risk they face. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health emphasised that workers
2 SEPTEMBER 2025 | PROCESS & CONTROL 0
wareness of the dangers posed by PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances), commonly known as “forever
could be exposed to PFAS in ways that are different than the general public – through touching contaminated products and breathing in PFAS in the air of their workplace.
Substituting dangerous chemicals The fact of the matter is businesses have a responsibility to remove these harmful chemicals from the supply chain. A recent survey found that 37% of UK and Ireland workers still do not believe that their employers are actively substituting hazardous chemicals. This is despite safer, PFAS-free alternatives to food packaging being available, such as natural greaseproof paper and silicone coatings. As reported by the OECD, these options offer comparable grease, water and heat resistance that are similar to PFAS used in food packaging, making them viable substitutes. To get ahead of compliance requirements
and proactively protect workers and consumers against PFAS, businesses can start by mapping out chemicals used throughout the supply chain. This allows a holistic view of the location where PFAS are present. Once identified, businesses can select safer alternatives, creating an action plan that includes research of PFAS-free substitutes for each use-case. Substitutes should be well evaluated for safety and performance, avoiding “regrettable substitutions”, alternatives that are just as harmful. To safely complete the process, businesses
should dispose of PFAS chemicals by referring to Section 13 of the safety data sheet. Options could include incineration, landfilling, through wastewater treatment or using the services of professional disposal companies. To simplify the process of understanding the
substances that are currently used to manufacture food packaging, businesses should adopt digital tools that can offer a digital chemical management inventory. This centralises all information about the chemicals
and products on site in one easily accessible solution. One key feature is the ability to perform quick, side-by-side comparisons of multiple products. This allows users to easily evaluate hazard properties and other key information, making it straightforward to identify safer alternatives. Instead of manually sifting through data, the software creates a clear comparison table that highlights differences and supports efficient decision making. From there, chemical substitution is possible, incorporating safer alternatives, such as a graphene oxide-based coating, that are better for the environment and human health. Although businesses should choose to be
proactive, external pressure is mounting. As the health risks are clear, customers and
advocacy groups are increasingly demanding “PFAS-free” guarantees in their food. A number of UK supermarkets have already begun phasing out PFAS based on petitions and public dissatisfaction, but broader industry and governmental action remains slow compared to European counterparts. A study of public attitudes towards PFAS found that 9 in 10 people want PFAS to be controlled in food, drinking water and the environment, saying that manufacturers of chemicals and products have the most significant responsibility for change. Firms have a responsibility to respond to these call outs and proactively substitute the PFAS in processes.
Proactivity for safety and sustainability The case for eliminating PFAS from UK food packaging is clear. The persistent nature of these chemicals, combined with obvious, documented health and environmental risks, means that the only responsible course is for businesses to take urgent, transparent action - protecting worker health, public welfare and the planet for years to come.
EcoOnline
ecoonline.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
