Ritz · Food Packaging
Ritz Crackers Original
Standard food packaging; grease resistance raises concern, no brand disclosure.
Ritz crackers use typical paperboard packaging with grease-resistant treatment, likely fluorinated. Mondelez makes no PFAS claims or disclosures. Consumers seeking lower-concern options should look for verified PFAS-free packaging.
The safe swap
World Centric
World Centric Compostable Fiber Compost-A-Pak Containers
100/100 safety
Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned its A.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
paperboard box with grease-resistant 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
Ritz Original crackers come in a paperboard box with a grease-resistant interior coating, typically a Teflon-family coating or wax-based barrier designed to prevent oil from the crackers seeping through. The crackers themselves are a flour-based snack fried in vegetable oil. The coating is not in direct contact with the food for extended time; it acts as a barrier between product and cardboard. However, any PFAS-based grease-resistant coating raises questions about migration into the product or environment after disposal.
The brand's record and disclosure
Mondelez International (Ritz's parent company) has not publicly disclosed PFAS use in food packaging or committed to phase-out timelines, placing it behind competitors like Unilever on transparency. No recalls or formal safety complaints specific to Ritz packaging have been documented in FDA or CPSC databases. The company has made general commitments to sustainable packaging but has not addressed PFAS specifically in investor or consumer communications.
How it compares in its category
Ritz uses standard industry-typical grease-resistant coating found in most mainstream cracker and snack boxes. Organic or premium brands (e.g., Simple Mills, Mary's Gone Crackers) sometimes use uncoated or wax-only packaging, reducing PFAS exposure. Budget competitors (store brands) typically use identical coating systems. Few snack boxes in mass retail are PFAS-free; this is not a differentiator.
If you buy it
Store in a cool, dry place; the coating does not degrade significantly under normal pantry conditions. Do not microwave the crackers in the box. Recycle the box in standard cardboard streams, though note that PFAS may not be fully removed in municipal recycling. If PFAS exposure is a primary concern, consider alternatives like uncoated bulk snacks or brands with explicit PFAS-free packaging claims.
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 grease-resistant coating
Paperboard box interior likely uses Teflon-family coating-based water and oil repellent. No brand disclosure on coating type or PFAS presence. Migration risk is low for dry crackers in short-term storage but cumulative exposure remains unquantified.
BPA or BPS in coating adhesive or ink
No documented cases of BPA/BPS contamination from Ritz packaging. Modern food-grade adhesives typically avoid these compounds, but ingredient transparency from Mondelez is limited.
Mineral oil or soy ink migration from printing
Box printing ink is typically on the exterior and poses no direct contact risk to crackers. Food-grade inks are standard in the industry; no specific safety alerts on record for Ritz.
Microplastics from coating degradation
Paperboard coating is unlikely to shed microplastics into the product under normal storage. Degradation would be visible (visible cracks, flaking) before meaningful contamination occurs.
Allergen cross-contact from shared packaging facility
Not a packaging hazard but a manufacturing control issue. Mondelez facilities handle multiple allergens; check the label for facility warnings if you have severe allergies.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 45% 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 Food Packaging
World Centric
Compostable Fiber Compost-A-Pak Containers
Fiber-based (wood pulp/molded fiber), compostable coating
Lower-concern choice; compostable fiber with documented PFAS-free commitments, though independent lab confirmation on this specific SKU is absent.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Vegware
Compostable Microflute Takeaway Box
Plant-based fiber (sugarcane bagasse microflute); water-based coatings
Lower-concern choice; plant-based compostable packaging with transparent PFAS-free positioning, though lab test availability is limited.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Loliware
Compostable Hinged Deli Containers
Polylactic acid (PLA) bioplastic, plant-based coatings
Lower PFAS concern; compostable bioplastic design avoids legacy fluorine coatings typical in food packaging.
✓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.