```html PFAS in Food Storage Containers: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

PFAS in Food Storage Containers: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

When it comes to reducing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) exposure in your kitchen, Stasher Stasher Storage Bag 4-Pack and Caraway's 17-Piece Food Storage Set emerge as the strongest performers in our analysis. Both products receive an A grade (100/100 safety) based on our model-based assessment of materials and public disclosures—reflecting lower concern for PFAS migration compared to industry alternatives. These containers prioritize silicone and glass construction without non-stick coatings, the primary vectors for PFAS in food storage.

The contrast with lower-ranked options is stark. Our Place Essentials Pan Trio and Our Place Bakeware Set both receive an F grade (20/100 safety), driven by non-stick ceramic coatings that, based on available materials and industry research, carry higher concern for PFAS-related compounds. Between these extremes lie solid middle-ground choices that balance functionality with reduced PFAS risk. This guide will help you navigate the full spectrum.

Comparison Table: Food Storage Containers Ranked by PFAS Concern

Product	Brand	Grade	Safety Score	Verdict
Stasher Storage Bag 4-Pack	Stasher	A	100/100	Lower concern — silicone, no non-stick coating
Stasher Original Bags 4-Pack	Stasher	A	100/100	Lower concern — silicone, no non-stick coating
Caraway 17-Piece Food Storage Set - Navy	Caraway	A	100/100	Lower concern — glass with ceramic lids
Stasher Premium Silicone Bags Multi	Stasher	A	100/100	Lower concern — silicone, no non-stick coating
Caraway Airtight Food Storage Set	Caraway	B	85/100	Moderate concern — glass base with some non-stick treatment
Bee's Wrap Assorted 3-Pack	Waste Free Pantry	B	85/100	Moderate concern — beeswax wrap, plant-based
Caraway Home 9-Piece Mini Food Storage Set	Caraway	B	85/100	Moderate concern — glass with lids
Caraway Food Storage Set	Caraway	B	85/100	Moderate concern — glass with lids
Caraway Cream 6.6-Cup Non-Stick Glass Container	Caraway	B	85/100	Moderate concern — glass with non-stick coating on lid
PrepNaturals 30-Pack Meal Prep Containers	Prep Naturals	C	75/100	Higher concern — plastic base with potential PFAS in seals
Our Place Essentials Pan Trio	Our Place	F	20/100	Highest concern — non-stick ceramic coating
Our Place Bakeware Set	Our Place	F	20/100	Highest concern — non-stick ceramic coating
Glad x Crayola Take-Aways 7-Pack	Glad	F	25/100	Highest concern — disposable plastic, potential additives

The A-Grade Winners: Lowest PFAS Concern

Stasher Silicone Reusable Bags (Grade A – 100/100)

Materials: Food-grade silicone with no PVC, BPA, or latex.

Brand Claims: Stasher explicitly markets its products as PFAS-free and phthalate-free. The company states these certifications on product packaging and their website, though we note this is a brand-stated claim rather than third-party lab verification published in peer-reviewed sources.

Our Model Assessment: Silicone bags represent a lower-concern choice because they lack non-stick coatings—the primary source of PFAS in food storage. Our grade of A (100/100) reflects this material-science advantage based on available materials and data. The absence of fluoropolymer coatings means no PTFE or similar PFAS-laden surfaces come into contact with food.

Pros: Reusable (reduces plastic waste), flexible for odd-shaped foods, withstands freezer and microwave use, strong seal integrity, dishwasher-safe.

Cons: Higher upfront cost ($30–50 for 4-pack); silicone can retain odors over time; not suitable for very sharp items.

Both Stasher Storage Bag 4-Pack and Stasher Premium Silicone Bags Multi achieve this top rating.

Caraway Glass Storage Sets (Grade A – 100/100)

Materials: Borosilicate glass containers with ceramic or silicone lids; no non-stick coatings on glass surfaces.

Brand Claims: Caraway promotes these products as non-toxic and PFAS-free (based on brand statements), though third-party lab certification is not publicly available in reviewed sources.

Our Model Assessment: Glass is an inert material with no chemical leaching pathway for PFAS. Our A grade reflects the material's inherent lower concern. The ceramic or silicone lids avoid fluoropolymer non-stick treatments, making these containers a solid structural choice for PFAS avoidance.

Pros: Transparent (see contents at a glance), chemical-inert, durable, oven-safe up to 400°F, freezer-compatible, easy to clean.

Cons: Heavy (breakage risk), more expensive than plastic ($60–120 for full sets), takes up significant cabinet space.

Caraway's 17-Piece Food Storage Set - Navy is the flagship option in this category.

The B-Grade Runners-Up: Moderate PFAS Concern

Several Caraway and Bee's Wrap products receive a B grade (85/100), indicating moderate concern based on available materials data. These include Caraway Home 9-Piece Mini Food Storage Set and Bee's Wrap Assorted 3-Pack. The B-rated Caraway options feature glass bases with lids that may include minor non-stick treatment or sealant compounds—not a major PFAS vector but a small concern relative to pure glass-and-ceramic designs. Bee's Wrap, made from organic cotton and beeswax, avoids synthetic polymers entirely and represents a plant-based middle ground.

What You're Trading: B-grade products sacrifice some PFAS reduction certainty for improved functionality (flexibility, cost, or reusability). They remain substantially lower-concern than disposable plastic or heavily coated cookware.

The C-Grade Caution Zone

PrepNaturals 30-Pack Meal Prep Containers receives a C grade (75/100), indicating higher concern. These plastic-based meal prep containers may contain PFAS-related compounds in their seals or plastic additives. While not as risky as non-stick cookware, plastic food storage does carry a documented PFAS leaching risk, especially if containers contact acidic, fatty, or hot foods. This grade reflects model-based estimate from materials and public disclosure, not a lab test of these specific units.

What to Avoid: The F-Grade Failures

Four products in our analysis receive failing F grades (20–25/100), signaling highest concern for PFAS exposure:

Our Place Essentials Pan Trio (F – 20/100): Non-stick ceramic coating. While marketed as "ceramic," these pans typically contain PFOA-alternative PFAS compounds to achieve non-stick performance. Ceramic is not inherently PFAS-free; the non-stick property requires fluorinated chemistry.
Our Place Bakeware Set (F – 20/100): Same concern—ceramic non-stick coating implies PFAS-related compounds, particularly relevant during baking when heat increases potential leaching.
Glad x Crayola Take-Aways 7-Pack (F – 25/100): Disposable plastic containers with potential PFAS additives in colorants, seals, or plastic formulation. Single-use design means no reusability benefit to offset chemical risk.
Anydeli Mixed Set 6-Pack (F – 25/100): Mixed plastic and metal construction with unclear lining materials, raising concern for hidden PFAS in coatings or adhesives.

Key Takeaway: F-graded products share one common feature—non-stick or heavily treated surfaces. This is the PFAS red flag in food storage. Avoid any container marketed with "non-stick" or "easy release" properties unless the brand provides explicit third-party lab confirmation of PFAS absence (not just brand-stated claims).

Material Science: Why Certain Containers Grade Higher

PFAS compounds are used in food storage and cookware primarily for non-stick properties. When you see "non-stick," "ceramic non-stick," or "easy-release" language, PFAS-related chemistry is almost always present—whether disclosed or not. In contrast:

Silicone: Achieves flexibility and non-stick properties through polymer structure alone, not added PFAS.
Glass: Chemically inert; requires no performance additives.
Beeswax wraps: Plant-derived, no synthetic fluorinated polymers.
Uncoated ceramics: Porous but PFAS-free; non-stick ceramics contain PFAS substitutes.

This distinction is critical: ceramic is not automatically safer than non-stick coating. Only uncoated ceramics or ceramic lids (without glaze) avoid PFAS.

Our Pick: The Best Overall Choice for PFAS Reduction

For most households, Caraway's 17-Piece Food Storage Set - Navy (Grade A – 100/100) represents the optimal balance of PFAS reduction, durability, and practicality. The set includes multiple glass sizes to handle diverse storage needs, ceramic-lined lids minimize gaps, and borosilicate glass's thermal stability lets you reheat directly in containers. At ~$120–140, it's a meaningful investment but eliminates PFAS concern from the storage stage of your food chain.

Budget Alternative: If cost is prohibitive, Stasher Stasher Storage Bag 4-Pack offers equal PFAS protection (Grade A) at ~$35, though with less versatility for dry goods or structured storage.

Hybrid Approach: Combine silicone bags (for marinating, leftovers, freezer items) with one large Caraway glass set for pantry staples. This spreads cost and customizes storage type to food type.

How These Grades Were Assigned

Our grades are model-based estimates derived from material composition, brand public disclosures, and peer-reviewed materials science—not lab tests of these specific products. A high grade (A/B) indicates lower concern based on absence of non-stick coatings and presence of inert materials. A failing grade (F) flags documented PFAS vectors (non-stick chemistry, unknown plastic additives) based on available materials data. No grade represents a guarantee or claim that a product is "safe"; rather, it reflects relative concern level. For definitive PFAS presence, only third-party lab testing of each unit can provide certainty.

For further exploration of PFAS risks across product categories, visit our Food Packaging category page to compare additional storage and preparation tools.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can I trust brand claims that a product is "PFAS-free"?

Brand-stated claims of PFAS-free status are not equivalent to third-party lab verification. Many companies make these assertions without publishing