Why “eco-friendly” drinking straws aren’t necessarily better than plastic

Across Germany and the EU, plastic straws have largely disappeared from cafés, offices, and events — a visible result of Europe’s push to cut single-use plastics. Since 2021, EU rules (implemented in German law via the Single-Use Plastics Ordinance) have prohibited placing single-use plastic drinking straws on the market, with limited medical exceptions. 

In their place came paper, bamboo, and other “natural” alternatives that feel safer and greener by default. But “not plastic” does not automatically mean “non-toxic” — or even “better” overall. A Belgian research team examined commercially available straws and found that many alternatives can contain PFAS, a class of chemicals often called “forever chemicals” because of how persistent they are in the environment. 

The uncomfortable part of the green swap

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been used in consumer products since the mid-20th century because they repel water, grease, and dirt. Those same properties make them attractive in food-contact materials that are supposed to stay firm in a drink — including paper-based items that would otherwise get soggy.

But PFAS are also problematic precisely because they don’t break down easily. They can accumulate in water, soils, wildlife, and people, and many PFAS are linked to adverse health outcomes. In Europe, regulators have been tightening rules for years — for example, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), one well-known PFAS, has been banned under the EU’s POPs Regulation since 4 July 2020. 

The key point: a straw can be “paper” and still carry a chemical footprint that doesn’t align with what consumers think they are choosing.

What the Belgian study found

Researchers from the University of Antwerp tested 39 brands of straws sold on the Belgian market, spanning paper, bamboo, glass, plastic (including plant-based plastics), and stainless steel. They combined targeted chemical analysis with broader suspect screening and concluded that PFAS were present in almost all straw types — except stainless steel. They also noted PFAS were detected more frequently in plant-based materials such as paper and bamboo. 

A widely reported detail from the same investigation is that PFAS were detected in a large share of paper and bamboo brands, while stainless steel showed none in the samples tested. 

The study’s message wasn’t “paper is worse than plastic” in every way. It was more precise than that: switching materials can shift the environmental and health trade-offs, and plant-based does not guarantee harmlessness or true biodegradability if persistent chemicals are involved. 

How do PFAS end up in “natural” straws?

There are two main pathways, and both matter for Germany and the EU because they reflect how deeply PFAS are embedded in modern supply chains.

First, PFAS can be intentionally used during manufacturing to improve water resistance. If you want paper to survive in a latte or a cocktail, chemical treatment can be tempting.

Second, PFAS can arrive earlier in the chain through contaminated raw materials. Plants can take up chemicals from soils and water, and recycled paper streams can carry residues from other PFAS-treated products. The Antwerp team explicitly pointed to both possibilities: PFAS may be added during production, but they may also already be present because of contaminated raw materials. 

Their screening also highlighted additional fluorinated substances beyond the most commonly discussed PFAS, underscoring a broader challenge: sometimes we regulate one compound, but related “replacement” substances or breakdown products remain widespread.

Why PFAS are treated as a serious public-health issue in Europe

No one gets sick from a single straw. The risk is cumulative exposure — and PFAS are ubiquitous: water, food, dust, and everyday products.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessments are especially clear on one central concern: immune effects. In its 2020 opinion, EFSA considered decreased response of the immune system to vaccination a critical effect for certain PFAS exposures. 

That is one reason PFAS have become a regulatory priority across Europe. The EU is now evaluating a broad restriction proposal prepared by authorities in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden — aiming to limit PFAS across many uses, with debate focused on essential applications and transition periods. 

The irony: A policy win can create a chemistry problem

Europe’s single-use plastics policy was built around a sensible idea: ban items where affordable alternatives exist, to reduce marine litter and waste. 

But when the market rushes to replace plastic with paper, bamboo, or “compostable” materials, we can end up substituting one problem (persistent plastic fragments) with another (persistent fluorinated chemicals). That doesn’t mean the plastic ban was wrong. It means the next phase of policy and procurement has to look beyond the material label and ask: what additives are being used to make this product perform?

Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has been discussing alternatives to plastic straws since the EU ban was introduced, reflecting exactly this kind of “safer substitution” question — not only what replaces plastic, but what new risks replacements might introduce. 

So what should consumers and businesses do?

If the goal is to reduce both plastic pollution and avoidable chemical exposure, the most robust approach is simple: use fewer straws overall, and where straws are needed (accessibility, medical reasons, children), prioritise options that minimise additive chemistry and can be used repeatedly.

In the Antwerp study, stainless steel straws showed no PFAS detection in the samples tested, while some other categories did show detections. That doesn’t mean steel is “perfect” — reusables come with their own practical concerns such as cleaning and hygiene — but it illustrates a broader principle: the cleanest alternative is often not a different single-use material, but reusability plus good maintenance.

For businesses (especially in Germany, where sustainability claims face increasing scrutiny), there is also a procurement lesson: ask suppliers for documentation on PFAS-free production, and treat “eco” marketing language as a starting point, not proof.

The bigger takeaway

The straw debate is not really about straws. It’s about how the sustainability transition can fail when it focuses on what’s visible (plastic vs paper) and ignores what’s invisible (chemistry).

Europe has already shown it can move markets quickly with policy. The next step is to ensure the replacements are genuinely safer — not only for oceans and wildlife, but also for the people holding the drink.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.