Sandwich Wrapper Cheeseburger Lot Of 2 Vtg 70s Food vs ~ EAT MOR CHIKIN Gift Wrap 10" x 10": which is safer?

Chick-fil-A ~ EAT MOR CHIKIN Gift Wrap 10" x 10" is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.

Burger King Sandwich Wrapper Cheeseburger Lot Of 2 Vtg 70s Food

Burger King

Sandwich Wrapper Cheeseburger Lot Of 2 Vtg 70s Food

PFAS grade

Poor 25/100

Overall grade

Bad 3/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 4

Material

Paper with grease-resistant coating (unspecified)

Confidence

35%

PossibleGrease-resistant coating migration (non-PFAS components)

ReportedUnknown additive content in vintage coating

PossiblePaper substrate degradation over decades

Our pick

Chick-fil-A ~ EAT MOR CHIKIN Gift Wrap 10" x 10"

Chick-fil-A

~ EAT MOR CHIKIN Gift Wrap 10" x 10"

PFAS grade

Poor 25/100

Overall grade

Bad 17/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 2

Material

paper gift wrap with water/grease-resistant coating

Confidence

45%

PossiblePFAS in moisture-resistant coating

PossibleCoating migration into food upon heat contact

Where these two actually differ

  • We flag Grease-resistant coating migration (non-PFAS components), Unknown additive content in vintage coating, Paper substrate degradation over decades and Formaldehyde-based adhesive or sizing on the Burger King and not on the Chick-fil-A.
  • We flag PFAS in moisture-resistant coating and Coating migration into food upon heat contact on the Chick-fil-A and not on the Burger King.
  • The Burger King is Paper with grease-resistant coating (unspecified) where the Chick-fil-A is paper gift wrap with water/grease-resistant coating, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
  • These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.

Both products run through the same public rubric: materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →

More fast-casual food packaging: see the full ranking