Does Kerrygold Butter Contain PFAS?

What are PFAS and why are they in the spotlight?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals used in various industrial and consumer products since the 1940s. They have traditionally been valued for their water-resistant, grease-resistant, and stain-repellent properties. Products such as non-stick cookware, firefighting foam, and some food wrappers may incorporate PFAS so they can effectively resist moisture and oil.

PFAS have attracted significant scrutiny due to their strong chemical bonds, which do not degrade easily in nature. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), certain PFAS can remain in groundwater, drinking water, soil, and the human body for prolonged periods. Ongoing research has also linked PFAS exposure to potential health issues such as cancer, thyroid dysfunction, and developmental complications in children (U.S. EPA data April 2024). Although some older PFAS compounds (like PFOA and PFOS) have been phased out in the United States, newer forms still raise questions about long-term safety. Scientists continue to study the effects of various PFAS mixtures and the cumulative impacts on human health.

Public pressure to regulate PFAS has grown in parallel with rising awareness of these chemicals’ persistence. Federal agencies, state legislatures, and local health departments are actively examining how PFAS might be regulated in food and water supplies. For instance, in April 2024, the U.S. EPA finalized enforceable drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 parts per trillion, as well as for several other PFAS variants at 10.0 parts per trillion. Even when present at low concentrations, PFAS can accumulate in human tissues over time, prompting a global reevaluation of how frequently we come into contact with these chemicals and in what amounts.

How can PFAS get into butter products?

PFAS can enter butter products through multiple pathways, but two primary routes stand out. First, butter wrappers may use coatings or treatments that repel grease and moisture. If these coatings contain PFAS, there is a possibility of chemical migration into the food during storage. A laboratory analysis conducted by Mamavation found indications of PFAS in the packaging of various butter brands, suggesting that these substances could end up in the butter simply by contact with the wrapper.

Second, environmental contamination can lead to PFAS presence in dairy products before packaging even comes into play. PFAS-contaminated soil and water can affect the grass and feed consumed by dairy cows. According to several environmental studies, PFAS in fertilizer, irrigation water, or feed additives may eventually accumulate in the milk supply. Fred Stone, a dairy farmer, discovered PFAS levels as high as 1,470 parts per trillion in his farm’s milk, primarily due to sewage sludge spread on his fields, data from his farm’s testing showed. Although not every region experiences such high contamination, the concern remains that PFAS can move from contaminated fields into the food chain.

Because butter is a high-fat product, there is particular interest in whether PFAS binds to its fat content. Research is still evolving regarding the exact rate and extent of chemical migration from PFAS-laden materials into fatty foods. Variables such as temperature, wrapper composition, and the overall concentration of PFAS can all influence how the chemical transfers to the product. Although studies have not conclusively proven widespread dangerous levels of PFAS in all dairy products, the potential pathways underscore why consumers are paying closer attention to butter wrappers and the role packaging might play in amplifying any existing contamination.

Is the concern about Kerrygold related to the butter or the packaging?

In most reports, the focus rests largely on the packaging, not necessarily on the butter’s inherent composition. Kerrygold faced scrutiny because some testing found fluorinated compounds in the foil wrappers themselves, raising questions about whether these substances could migrate into the butter. Multiple media outlets noted that Kerrygold was removed from select store shelves in New York and California due to local legislation restricting food packaging that contains PFAS.

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Kerrygold used packaging materials containing PFAS. Lawyers for plaintiffs have argued that incorporating PFAS in the packaging contradicts claims of “Pure Irish Butter.” The crux is whether the packaging alone harbors PFAS or if significant levels migrate into the product. Regulatory bodies in different states, including New York, have established rules aimed at phasing out PFAS in food wrappers to prevent consumer exposure.

Studies on butter specifically remain limited. While contamination in packaging is a serious topic, it is important to highlight that scientific data has not conclusively shown widespread, dangerously high levels of PFAS inside the butter itself. Still, the presence of PFAS in packaging can raise valid concerns about potential migration over time, especially when the product is in direct contact with the liner. Many consumers, seeing widely available stories about Kerrygold’s packaging, now wonder whether other butter brands could have similar issues.

Has Kerrygold ever tested positive for PFAS?

Independent tests have indicated at least some sign of PFAS in the foil wrappers of Kerrygold butter. Mamavation, an organization that tested 32 different butter wrappers, reported that Kerrygold’s packaging contained evidence of fluorinated chemicals. In a statement summarizing its results, Mamavation noted, “We found indications of PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ inside popular butter wrappers,” naming Kerrygold among the brands with positive detections. While those findings do not necessarily quantify how much PFAS migrates into the butter, the discovery triggered heightened scrutiny and eventual product withdrawals from certain U.S. markets.

The precise levels of PFAS in the butter itself remain less clear. At the time of public reports, testing primarily centered on packaging rather than the melted or solid butter product. The brand has acknowledged revisiting its packaging materials in light of regulatory changes. Meanwhile, no formal consensus exists that Kerrygold’s butter poses a health risk on a wide scale. Even so, store removals in California and New York illustrate the regulatory shift toward banning PFAS in food containers.

Some critics emphasize that ongoing research is necessary to confirm the full scope of PFAS levels in butter. The product’s high fat content could, in theory, increase chemical retention, but conclusive, large-scale testing data is scarce. Many watchers believe fresh regulatory standards will prompt more rigorous, transparent testing in the near future, ensuring that brand statements about PFAS-free packaging are backed by verifiable evidence.

What has Kerrygold or its parent company said?

Kerrygold is produced by Ornua Foods North America, which has responded to PFAS-related concerns primarily by updating packaging materials to comply with new state regulations. Though direct quotes from Ornua Foods have been limited, public statements indicate that the company aims to meet or exceed PFAS standards set forth by jurisdictions like California and New York. “We are making changes to our foil to ensure we remain compliant,” one representative reportedly said, pointing to evolving packaging laws.

IrishCentral.com announced that Kerrygold butter would be returning to shelves once updated wrappers were introduced to meet legal requirements in states that have banned or restricted PFAS in food packaging. The brand’s marketing largely remains focused on the butter’s Irish origins, grass-fed production methods, and high-quality taste. The question of PFAS, however, has prompted Kerrygold to clarify that it is working toward safer packaging solutions.

To date, neither Kerrygold nor Ornua Foods North America has admitted any wrongdoing in legal filings. Instead, they emphasize adherence to evolving U.S. legislation and promise to investigate any third-party claims about PFAS. They also caution that some tests can detect extremely minute traces of various chemicals, highlighting the complexity of differentiating genuine health hazards from minimal contacts that might be below regulatory thresholds.

Are there PFAS in dairy products generally?

PFAS can appear in many dairy products when contamination occurs upstream—either through livestock feed, water, or soil. Certain agricultural practices, such as the use of PFAS-contaminated fertilizer or sewage sludge, can result in elevated PFAS levels in milk. Reports like the one by Fred Stone underscore how farmland contamination can expose dairy cows to these chemicals.

At a broader level, ongoing research suggests that most dairy products tested in the market do not exhibit alarmingly high PFAS concentrations. Instead, potential problems tend to be localized or linked to specific contamination sources. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has periodically tested dairy samples, though large-scale surveillance is still developing. As more data becomes available on farm-level contamination, policymakers may propose stricter screening methods for dairy to ensure PFAS levels remain minimal.

Packaging is another contributor to PFAS in dairy foods. Certain coatings or plastic-based films used in cheeses or butter wrappers could become a source of chemical exposure if PFAS leaches into the food over time. With consumer demand for safer products rising, some manufacturers have proactively sought certifications for PFAS-free packaging. Similarly, dairy farmers aiming to market a clean label must ensure that their supply chain remains free of inadvertent PFAS sources, generating additional scrutiny around feed materials, water infrastructure, and soils.

What should consumers look for in PFAS-free food packaging?

Food-packaging labels do not always specify the presence or absence of PFAS. However, some packaging now carries language like “PFAS-free” or “No PFAS added.” When grocery shopping, we advise consumers to look carefully at organic or eco-friendly claims and then verify whether the claim extends to the package’s chemical treatments. A company that openly discloses how it tests for PFAS or provides specific safety certifications often indicates a lower likelihood of PFAS contamination.

Here are some pointers consumers can consider:

• Seek brands that voluntarily disclose third-party testing results for chemical contaminants.

• Favor packaging certified compostable by reputable organizations, as these certifications often ban or strictly limit added fluorinated chemicals.

• Check for product updates. Many brands, including Kerrygold, have transitioned to or announced PFAS-free packaging upgrades.

• Look for simpler packaging materials like uncoated paper whenever practical. Specialized grease-resistant wrappers are more likely to contain fluorinated compounds.

Official labeling standards around PFAS-free packaging are still evolving. In states such as California, legislation bans using intentionally added PFAS in paper-based food packaging. As companies adjust to comply, more products should carry disclaimers or certifications stating their PFAS-free status. In the meantime, if a product’s label remains silent on the issue, it can be challenging to discern whether it uses PFAS treatments.

Are there legal limits for PFAS in food or wrappers?

The United States does not have uniform national limits specifically for PFAS across all food items. Instead, federal and state bodies have shifted focus to drinking water thresholds and, more recently, packaging regulations. At the federal level, the U.S. EPA sets maximum contaminant levels in drinking water. As of April 2024, those standards are enforceable at 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, and 10.0 parts per trillion for PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX, along with a hazard index for combined exposure. Meanwhile, agencies like the FDA conduct their own risk assessments for food, but no overarching rule across all PFAS in food has been standardized yet.

Certain states have taken the lead in regulating PFAS in food packaging. California, Washington, and New York have enacted measures restricting the use of intentionally added PFAS in paper-based wrappers, effectively banning packaging that contains detectable levels of the chemicals. Consequently, brands selling products in these states might need to reformulate packaging to comply. Kerrygold’s recall in New York and California provides a concrete example of how local policy can influence national brands to change their wrappers.

Internationally, some regulatory bodies in the European Union also have stricter guidelines for PFAS in consumer products and have introduced broader proposals to ban the entire class of PFAS chemicals in non-essential uses. These efforts remain subject to ongoing negotiations. As legislation evolves, more comprehensive regulations could emerge, linking PFAS content in food, wrappers, and water to enforceable limits.

How to reduce PFAS exposure from food packaging

Although PFAS are widespread in the environment, there are practical ways to lessen exposure, especially through everyday items like food wrappers. Because PFAS can migrate from the packaging to the food, reducing contact with materials that might contain these chemicals can lower your intake. Based on current research and recommendations by environmental scientists, here are several steps you can take:

1. Favor fresh or minimally packaged foods. Items high in grease or moisture often require PFAS treatments for leak-proof packaging. Opting for produce or products sold without excessive wrapping cuts down on potential contact.

2. Avoid microwave popcorn bags and fast-food wrappers. These products often use PFAS to keep oils from seeping through. Popping kernels on the stove or using microwave-safe glass bowls can limit exposure.

3. Choose cookware labeled PFAS-free. Non-stick pans traditionally used PFOA to achieve their slick surface. Many modern brands now offer alternatives made with ceramic or other materials that do not contain PFAS.

4. Follow local fish consumption advisories. PFAS discharges may contaminate rivers, lakes, and oceans. According to pfas contamination map resources, high PFAS levels can build up in fish, so check advisories to see if your local area is affected.

5. Research brand packaging. If you are concerned about a specific brand’s packaging, investigate whether the company provides any assurances or testing data. This is especially important for products that remain in contact with their wrappers for extended periods.

Individuals who worry that they have encountered substantial PFAS contamination—beyond routine packaging exposure—can learn more about legal responsibilities and compensation routes at pfas liability. Additionally, a comprehensive overview of health risks from PFAS is available at pfas health effects.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Below are some common questions regarding Kerrygold PFAS concerns and broader PFAS issues in butter packaging and dairy products.

Does kerrygold butter still contain PFAS today?

Kerrygold has reintroduced its products to markets in California and New York, indicating that the company has modified its packaging to comply with state regulations banning PFAS. While new wrappers are presumed to be PFAS-free, published independent testing results are not widely available at this time.

Do PFAS in wrappers always contaminate the food inside?

PFAS migration depends on multiple factors, such as wrapper composition, product temperature, and contact duration. While some studies, including those from Mamavation, found evidence of PFAS inside butter packaging, the exact rate at which these chemicals transfer to the actual product can vary.

Are there official recalls for kerrygold butter linked to PFAS contamination?

Reports indicate that Kerrygold butter was removed from shelves in specific states due to new regulations restricting PFAS in packaging. This action is often referred to as a “recall,” though it more accurately represents a compliance decision rather than an FDA-issued safety recall.

Is the butter itself harmful or unsafe to eat?

There is no general consensus that Kerrygold butter is harmful due to PFAS, especially at typical dietary exposure levels. That said, certain consumers want to err on the side of caution. People with high concerns may wish to seek alternative products clearly labeled PFAS-free until more definitive data comes to light.

What health effects are associated with PFAS?

Research suggests PFAS exposure may be linked to a variety of health risks, including potential cancer development, thyroid problems, and reduced immune function. Children and pregnant individuals can be more vulnerable. For an in-depth overview, you can visit pfas health effects.

How can consumers protect themselves from PFAS in other foods too?

Along with selecting PFAS-free wrappers, consumers can reduce potential exposure by using water filters specifically designed for PFAS removal, choosing cookware labeled as PFAS-free, and verifying fish consumption advisories in their area. We have covered these strategies extensively in sections on how to remove pfas from water.

Are there legal options if someone believes

PFAS contamination harmed them?
Individuals with serious health effects or known high exposure to PFAS may explore legal claims with specialized attorneys.