Notabowl · Paper Straws
Aardvark Paper Drinking Straws 7.75" 50
Lower-concern choice; paper straws typically avoid PFAS, but verify no grease-resistant coating.
Aardvark paper straws are plain paper, a material category with inherently lower PFAS risk since PFAS coatings are unnecessary for this product. Notabowl does not publicly disclose PFAS status.
Shop Notabowl on Amazon →Material
Paper (uncoated or water-based coating)
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Category baseline
food packaging is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Aardvark Paper Drinking Straws are made from paper (typically kraft or similar cellulose), which is inherently free of synthetic polymers like Teflon-type coating and most industrial coatings. Paper straws may have water-based adhesives or sizing agents to add structural integrity and water resistance, but these are minimal and not linked to known consumer hazards. Unlike plastic straws, paper avoids leaching of BPA, phthalates, or microplastics during use. The uncoated or water-based coating approach means no fluorinated grease-resistant chemicals (PFAS) are needed to repel moisture.
The brand's record and disclosure
Notabowl does not publish detailed material safety data, ingredient sourcing, or third-party certifications for these straws on publicly available record. The brand offers no explicit statement on PFAS avoidance, manufacturing standards, or chemical testing. Without independent recalls or safety complaints tied to this specific product in consumer databases, there is no established brand safety concern. Silence on disclosure is a transparency weakness, but it does not contradict the inherent safety profile of paper as a material.
How it compares in its category
Paper straws are the chemical-safest category in single-use drinking straws, avoiding both PFAS and plastic leaching hazards that affect plastic and coated alternatives. Compared to bamboo, metal, or glass straws, paper requires no cleaning maintenance and poses no breakage or mold risk. The trade-off is durability and repeated use: paper straws soften over 20-30 minutes in liquid and are designed for single use, making them less eco-efficient than reusable alternatives. Within disposable options, paper ranks highest for chemical safety.
If you buy it
Store straws in a dry, cool place to prevent mold or decomposition before use. Do not reuse straws; they are designed for single-use only and will degrade structurally if washed and reused. Use within typical beverage temperatures (cold to warm drinks); do not use with boiling liquids, as paper softens rapidly and may collapse. Discard after 30-45 minutes of contact with liquid to avoid mushy texture and bacterial growth in the straw.
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.”
Ink or dye residue from printing/branding
Paper straws often have printed branding or color. Food-contact approved inks are typically used, but Notabowl does not publicly disclose ink type or testing for migration into beverages. Regulatory standards exist (FDA 21 CFR 175.105), but without third-party certification, the actual ink formulation is unverified.
Adhesive or sizing agent residue
Paper straws use adhesives to bond the paper tube and sizing agents for water resistance. These are typically food-safe but unspecified by Notabowl. Standard food-contact adhesives do not pose hazards in short-term use, but long-term beverage contact (beyond 30 minutes) may increase minor leaching.
Microbial growth (mold, bacteria)
Paper's porous structure, especially if stored in humid conditions or wetted before use, can harbor mold spores or bacterial colonization. This is a storage and usage issue, not a manufacturing defect, but poor storage conditions significantly increase risk.
Chlorine residue from bleaching
No public information indicates Notabowl uses chlorine-bleached paper or that residues exceed food-contact limits. Industry standard for food-contact paper is ECF (elemental chlorine-free) or TCF (totally chlorine-free) processing, but Notabowl does not specify.
Lead or heavy metals in pigments
No recalls or safety data link Aardvark or Notabowl paper straws to heavy metal contamination. Food-contact inks are typically tested against lead limits, but independent verification is absent from available public records.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 78% 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 Paper Straws
World Centric
Compostable Straws
Plant-based cellulose (PHA/PLA blend), compostable
Lower-concern choice; compostable material + explicit PFAS-free claim + third-party certifications reduce risk substantially.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Vegware
Compostable Standard Straws (6500ct)
Polylactic acid (PLA) bioplastic
Lower concern; compostable PLA straws with credible third-party compostability certs and explicit PFAS-free positioning.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Vegware
Green stripe Jumbo Vegware wrapped PLA
PLA (polylactic acid) compostable plastic
Lower concern; PLA itself carries minimal PFAS risk, and Vegware makes no intentional additions, but verify end-of-life composting.
⚠Risky category by default
More paper straws 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.