PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall3/ 100Bad
Burger King Sandwich Wrapper Cheeseburger Lot Of 2 Vtg 70s Food

Burger King · Fast-Casual Food Packaging

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

Poor

Skip. Vintage 1970s wrapper likely PFAS-coated for grease protection.

Verdict · SkipVintage 1970s fast-food wrapper with undisclosed PFAS-based grease coating; handling considerations differ from modern food contact standards.

1970s fast-food wrappers used grease-resistant coatings that were typically PFAS-based. No composition data exists for this vintage wrapper.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

Paper with grease-resistant coating (unspecified)

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

You may also be interested in

Top-graded picks in the categories readers replace first, every one scored on the same rubric.

  • polypropylene filter housing, carbon/sediment cartridge
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Bacterial growth in spent cartridges

3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.

  • RO membrane, carbon filters, stainless steel housing
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Bacterial and microbial growth in housing and filters

4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.

Avocado Vegan Mattress

Avocado

Vegan Mattress

100ExcellentPFAS grade
✓ MADE SAFE Certified✓ Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)
  • organic cotton, natural latex, coconut coir, recycled steel coils
  • The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
  • Heavy metals

2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.

What Burger King Sandwich Wrapper Vtg 70s Food is made of, ingredients and materials

This is a paper-based food wrapper from the 1970s with a grease-resistant coating applied to the food-contact surface. Fast-food chains of that era used fluorochemical coatings, typically PFOA-class compounds, to prevent oil and moisture from soaking through and degrading the paper structure. The exact formulation is not disclosed on vintage packaging, and Burger King has not publicly documented the composition of wrappers from this period. Paper itself is inert, but the coating's chemistry and migration potential under food contact conditions are unknowable without manufacturer testing.

What’s concerning

♾️

Category baseline

The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.

75/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
♾️

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

Water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

65/ 100
♾️

PFAS

Even if the coating contains PFAS, secondary chemicals in the coating formulation (plasticizers, binders, processing aids) may also migrate to food contact under certain conditions. No testing data exists for this specific wrapper lot.

Source, ATSDR ↗
70/ 100
🍳

Unknown additive content in vintage coating

1970s food packaging coatings often included heavy metal catalysts, formaldehyde resins, and other now-restricted substances as stabilizers. Burger King did not disclose these formulations, and degradation of 50+ year old coating over time may increase leaching risk.

45/ 100
⏳

Paper substrate degradation over decades

Vintage paper is brittle and may shed micro-fragments if flexed or handled. If the coating has partially separated from the substrate, exposure to coating particles becomes a concern, particularly if the wrapper touches food.

70/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Paper coatings and laminates of the 1970s commonly used formaldehyde-based resins to bond coating layers. Off-gassing is unlikely at room temperature after 50 years, but mechanical stress or heat could mobilize residual compounds.

Source, ATSDR ↗
70/ 100

How is this PFAS grade calculated?

The brand's record and disclosure

Burger King has not made public statements about the specific PFAS content of historical food packaging from the 1970s. The brand did not adopt comprehensive PFAS phase-out commitments until decades later, and vintage wrappers predate modern safety labeling and reformulation standards. No recalls or safety alerts have been issued specifically for 1970s Burger King wrapper batches, but absence of a recall does not indicate safety testing was performed. The lack of transparency about historical formulations is typical of fast-food packaging from that era.

How it compares in its category

Modern fast-food wrappers have shifted toward coatings with lower PFAS concern or reduced PFAS following regulatory pressure and corporate commitments beginning in the 2010s. Vintage 1970s wrappers represent the peak era of unregulated fluorochemical use in food contact papers before any scrutiny existed. Today's alternatives use wax, silicone, or synthetic polymer coatings with known safety profiles. This product presents different risk considerations than current fast-food packaging and was not designed with contemporary food safety expectations in mind.

If you buy it

This is a collectible vintage item, not functional food packaging. If kept for historical or sentimental purposes, store it in a dry, cool environment away from direct contact with food. Do not allow the wrapper to contact fresh food, especially fatty or acidic items that would accelerate migration of any residual coating compounds. If used for any food purpose, assume complete unknown chemical exposure and accept that risk consciously. Washing hands after handling is advisable, particularly before eating.

What is not known about PFAS in this product?

Basis
Model estimate, 35% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Burger King has made none

Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.

More fast-casual food packaging grades

How we score, every product runs through the same public 0-100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.