Ritz Crackers with Salt
Grease-resistant paperboard likely contains PFAS; no brand transparency.
Ritz with Salt uses grease-resistant paperboard, a known PFAS source in food packaging. No testing data or public commitment from the brand available.
The safe swap
Plate Mate
Plant Plates
85/100 safety
Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
paperboard with grease-resistant coating
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
What’s concerning
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
Water-repellent treatments have historically contained PFAS chemicals.
No PFAS disclosure
The company has not publicly discussed PFAS in this product.
Category baseline
food packaging is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
Grease-resistant coating migration
The fluorinated polymer coating on interior paperboard surfaces is designed to repel oil but can migrate onto fatty foods in contact with it, especially under heat or extended storage. Ritz crackers, being oily, represent moderate contact risk per serving.
Mineral oil or paraffin wax contaminants in paperboard
Recycled paperboard used in food packaging may contain residual mineral oils from printing inks or prior uses. No specific testing of Ritz packaging has been published; this is a general paperboard-sourcing risk, not Ritz-specific.
What’s reassuring
BPA & bisphenols
BPA is occasionally found in paperboard coatings, but major cracker manufacturers including Ritz have phased BPA from food-contact surfaces in response to regulatory pressure. No reported detections in Ritz packaging.
Source: FDA ↗Ink or dye migration from exterior printing
Exterior box printing is separated from the food by the paperboard thickness; this poses minimal risk. No reported issues with Ritz packaging inks.
Allergen cross-contamination in packaging
Ritz packaging itself poses no allergen hazard; the cracker formulation and facility practices are separate food-safety concerns outside packaging scope.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Ritz crackers come in paperboard packaging with a grease-resistant coating applied to the interior surface to prevent oil from the crackers from saturating or leaking through the box. This coating is almost certainly a fluorinated compound (PFAS-based) or similar synthetic water and grease repellent, a standard industry practice for oily snack packaging. Paperboard itself is inert, but the coating is the exposure vector when the crackers contact the interior surface. Heating or prolonged storage of fatty foods in contact with this coating can increase migration risk, though crackers are shelf-stable room-temperature products.
The brand's record and disclosure
Ritz (owned by Mondelez International) has not publicly committed to PFAS-free packaging or disclosed the specific composition of their grease-resistant coatings. The brand has made no public statements on PFAS in food packaging as of recent records. No recalls or safety violations specific to Ritz packaging chemistry are on record. The silent stance is typical of major snack manufacturers and reflects lack of regulatory pressure rather than a sign of safety.
How it compares in its category
Most mass-market oily cracker and chip packaging relies on identical grease-resistant coating technology, so Ritz is unremarkable in this category. Premium or organic cracker brands sometimes use minimal or uncoated paperboard, accepting grease staining as a tradeoff. Bulk or plastic-bagged alternatives shift the hazard profile to plasticizer concerns rather than eliminating PFAS exposure entirely. Ritz represents the mainstream commercial approach, not an outlier.
If you buy it
Store unopened boxes at room temperature away from heat or direct sunlight; do not place packaging near ovens or in hot cars, as this can increase coating migration into the crackers. Once opened, transfer crackers to airtight containers if storing longer than a few days to reduce contact time with the coating. This is a shelf-stable convenience food with a short consumption window, so hazard exposure per serving is typically minimal for infrequent consumers. If concerned about PFAS, rotate to uncoated or alternative brands; if eating regularly, this becomes a cumulative exposure worth evaluating in the context of total diet.
What we don’t know
- Basis
- Model estimate, 45% confidence, not a lab result
- Lab test
- None on record for this exact product
- Brand statement
- Ritz has made none
Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.
Safer alternatives in Food Packaging
World Centric
Compostable Fiber Compost-A-Pak Containers
Fiber-based (wood pulp/molded fiber), compostable coating
Proprietary coating chemical migration
Limited concern
Moisture and microbial growth in fiber matrix
Limited concern
Coating degradation under heat or fatty foods
Moderate concern
Recycling contamination if misdisposed
Limited concern
Lower concern with documented PFAS-free commitments, though independent lab confirmation on this specific product absent.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Vegware
Compostable Microflute Takeaway Box
Plant-based fiber (sugarcane bagasse microflute); water-based coatings
Coating degradation under heat and moisture
Limited concern
Lower concern; plant-based compostable packaging with stated PFAS-free positioning and limited independent verification.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Loliware
Compostable Hinged Deli Containers
Polylactic acid (PLA) bioplastic, plant-based coatings
PLA oligomer leaching
Limited concern
Microplastic generation on degradation
Limited concern
Lower PFAS concern; compostable bioplastic design avoids fluorine coatings.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
More 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.