Lakeland · Disposable Food Containers
Paper Mart Econo-Pak Takeout Box
Skip; standard takeout box coatings often contain PFAS without disclosure.
Lakeland's takeout box has waterproofing but no material disclosure or PFAS commitment. Typical food packaging coatings carry moderate PFAS risk without third-party verification.
The safe swap
Lakeland
Sustainables 3 Compartment Hinged Lid To Go Food Container
70/100 safety
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Paperboard with unspecified waterproof coating
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
Category baseline
food packaging is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Paper Mart Econo-Pak boxes are paperboard with an unspecified waterproof coating applied to prevent grease and moisture penetration. The coating chemistry is not disclosed by the manufacturer, which is the core safety problem: waterproof coatings on food packaging are the primary vector for PFAS migration into food, especially fatty or hot foods. Without knowing whether the coating is PFAS-based, fluorocarbon-free wax, or another polymer, you cannot assess leaching risk.
The brand's record and disclosure
Lakeland, a UK-based kitchenware and food-service supplier, does not publicly disclose coating formulations for this product line or state a position on PFAS avoidance in food contact materials. No third-party certifications (such as GOTS, Cradle to Cradle, or explicit PFAS-free claims) are marketed for the Econo-Pak line. The silence on coating identity is consistent with industry-wide opacity on this issue, but it shifts burden of proof to the consumer without recourse.
How it compares in its category
Standard disposable takeout boxes (including Econo-Pak competitors) predominantly use PFOA or PFOS-based coatings or newer PFAS replacements (GenX, PFBS) because they are cost-effective and durable. Some premium or certified-organic suppliers explicitly use PE or wax-only alternatives and disclose this. Lakeland's Econo-Pak pricing and lack of disclosure suggests it uses conventional fluorinated chemistry, but this is inference, not confirmation.
If you buy it
Do not use for hot or fatty foods (pizza, fried chicken, oily takeout), as heat and lipid content both accelerate PFAS migration into food. Reserve only for dry, room-temperature items if you proceed. Replace boxes immediately if coating shows wear, peeling, or water staining, as degraded barriers increase leaching. Better practice: request suppliers use explicitly certified PFAS-free alternatives or switch to supplier-provided reusable containers.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
PFAS in waterproof coating (graded separately)
Unspecified 'waterproof coating' on food-contact paperboard is the classic PFAS delivery mechanism. Fluorocarbon coatings are industry standard for this application and not disclosed here, indicating possible or probable PFAS presence.
Coating degradation and migration
Polyboard food-contact coatings degrade with heat, moisture, and repeated use, releasing coating fragments and dissolved chemistry into food. This is documented in food-contact material literature and applies to any unspecified synthetic coating.
Heavy metals or binders in coating resins
Some waterproof coatings for paperboard historically used lead or cadmium-bearing pigments or epoxy binders. No specific testing data exists for this product, but older formulae are not excluded.
Microplastics from coating wear
If the waterproof layer is synthetic polymer-based (likely), repeated folding, stacking, or contact with hot foods can shed microparticles into food. No published recalls exist for this brand, but the mechanism is recognized in polymer-coated paper literature.
Lack of transparency and recourse
Manufacturer silence on coating chemistry prevents informed choice and complicates post-purchase complaint resolution. This is an information hazard, not a direct chemical hazard, but it prevents meaningful risk assessment.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 35% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Disposable Food Containers
Lakeland
Sustainables 3 Compartment Hinged Lid To Go Food Container
Molded fiber/pulp (plant-based)
Lower concern. Molded fiber food containers unlikely to contain PFAS.
⚠Risky category by default
Lakeland
Hefty Food Service Containers Rectangle 9 3/4" x 5" x 3 1/4" 125 ct
Polypropylene (disposable food containers)
Lower concern, but brand discloses nothing about PFAS.
⚠Risky category by default
Rubbermaid
TakeAlongs Food Storage Containers 10 Piece Set
polypropylene plastic containers with lids
Lower concern; basic plastic food storage with no known PFAS triggers.
⚠Risky category by default
More disposable food containers 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.