Are PFAS Used in Food Packaging? 5 Essential Facts for Your Business in 2025

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a class of synthetic chemicals widely incorporated into food packaging materials due to their desirable oil- and water-repellent properties. An examination of current scientific literature and regulatory frameworks as of 2025 reveals that their use, while declining under pressure, remains a significant issue. The core of the problem lies in the extreme persistence of PFAS in the environment and their ability to migrate from packaging into food, leading to human exposure. This exposure is linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, including metabolic disruption, immune system effects, and developmental problems. In response, regulatory bodies in the United States and the European Union are implementing increasingly stringent restrictions and bans on PFAS in food contact materials. This evolving legal landscape, coupled with growing consumer awareness, compels the food and packaging industries to seek and validate safer, PFAS-free alternatives to mitigate legal risks, protect public health, and maintain brand integrity in a market that prioritizes safety and sustainability.

Key Takeaways

• PFAS chemicals provide grease and water resistance to paper and fiber-based food packaging.
• These "forever chemicals" can migrate from packaging into your food, leading to exposure.
• Health risks linked to PFAS include thyroid disease, high cholesterol, and immune suppression.
• The question of are PFAS used in food packaging is met with stricter global regulations in 2025.
• Businesses must verify their supply chains to ensure they use truly PFAS-free materials.
• Effective, commercially viable alternatives to PFAS-treated packaging are now widely available.
• Transitioning to safer packaging protects consumer health and enhances brand reputation.

Table of Contents

• 1. The Pervasive Presence: How and Why PFAS Are Used in Food Packaging
• 2. The Unseen Risks: Health and Environmental Consequences of PFAS Exposure
• 3. The Shifting Landscape: Navigating Global PFAS Regulations in 2025
• 4. The Business Imperative: Why Moving Away from PFAS is Non-Negotiable
• 5. The Path Forward: Embracing Safe and Effective PFAS-Free Alternatives

1. The Pervasive Presence: How and Why PFAS Are Used in Food Packaging

To grasp the scope of the challenge presented by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, one must first understand their fundamental nature and the functional role they have come to play in modern commerce. It is not by accident or malice that these chemicals became ubiquitous; rather, their unique properties offered an elegant solution to a persistent problem in the food service industry: containment. The very convenience of a take-out meal, a microwaveable snack, or a bakery pastry that does not soak its container in grease owes a debt to the chemical ingenuity that produced PFAS. Yet, as our scientific understanding deepens, we are forced to confront the unintended consequences of this ingenuity, questioning the bargain we struck between convenience and long-term safety.

What Exactly Are PFAS? A Primer on 'Forever Chemicals'

Imagine building a chain where each link is exceptionally strong. Now, imagine coating that chain with a shield that repels almost everything it touches. This is a simplified, but useful, way to think about PFAS. They are a large family of thousands of synthetic chemicals characterized by a chain of carbon atoms bonded with fluorine atoms. The carbon-fluorine bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry. This remarkable stability is the source of both their commercial value and their environmental persistence.

This bond is so robust that it resists degradation from heat, water, oil, and chemical reactions. It is why they are often called "forever chemicals"—they do not easily break down in the environment or in our bodies. When scientists discuss these compounds, they often refer to their molecular structure, which gives them their unique properties. As noted by Hirose Paper MFG, fluorine's high electronegativity creates these incredibly stable bonds, making PFAS resistant to chemical reactions and lending them the durability that has made them so widely used in applications from firefighting foams to cosmetics and, most relevant to our discussion, food packaging (hirose-paper-mfg.co.jp). The family of PFAS is vast, including long-chain compounds like PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), which have been largely phased out due to known health risks, and the newer, short-chain PFAS that were developed to replace them, but are now also coming under scrutiny.

The Functional Appeal: Grease, Water, and Heat Resistance

The primary reason PFAS found their way into food packaging is their remarkable ability to function as surfactants. In this context, they act as a barrier, preventing liquids and fats from leaking through paper and paperboard containers. Consider the humble pizza box. Without a barrier, the grease from the cheese and toppings would quickly saturate the cardboard, compromising its structural integrity and creating a mess. The same principle applies to fast-food wrappers for burgers and fries, disposable plates, microwave popcorn bags, and molded fiber bowls often marketed as "eco-friendly" compostable options.

PFAS are applied to the surface of these paper products, creating a low-surface-energy coating. This means that substances with high surface tension, like water and oil, bead up and are repelled rather than being absorbed. This functionality became a cornerstone of the single-use food packaging industry, allowing for the transport and consumption of a wide variety of foods without failure of the container. The chemicals solve the practical problems of leakage, sogginess, and staining, which are critical for consumer satisfaction and food safety in the short term. The central question we must now ask is whether this short-term functionality justifies the long-term risks associated with their use.

Common Culprits: Identifying Packaging Types with High PFAS Risk

While it is impossible to know if a specific item contains PFAS just by looking at it, research and testing have identified certain categories of food packaging that historically have a high likelihood of being treated with these chemicals. Businesses and consumers should be particularly mindful of these products.

It is especially important to highlight molded fiber products. Often made from materials like sugarcane bagasse or bamboo, they are marketed to environmentally conscious consumers as a sustainable alternative to plastic. However, without a functional barrier, these porous materials would quickly absorb moisture and oils. To make them functional for holding hot, wet, or greasy foods, many manufacturers have historically treated them with PFAS. This creates a paradox where a product perceived as "green" could be a source of persistent chemical contamination.

Intentional Use vs. Unintentional Contamination

The discussion about whether are PFAS used in food packaging is complicated by the distinction between intentional addition and unintentional contamination. Intentional use is straightforward: a manufacturer deliberately applies a PFAS-based coating to a paper or paperboard product to achieve a desired performance characteristic, like grease resistance. This has been the standard practice for decades.

However, the problem is deeper than just intentional application. Unintentional contamination can occur through several pathways. As Consumer Reports highlights, the widespread use of PFAS means they can inadvertently enter the manufacturing process (consumerreports.org). For example:

• Recycled Materials: If paper products containing PFAS are recycled, the "forever chemicals" can be carried over into the new recycled pulp. This pulp may then be used to create new food packaging that is not intentionally treated but is nevertheless contaminated.
• Manufacturing Equipment: PFAS can be used as processing aids or release agents on industrial machinery that manufactures paper and packaging. Small amounts of these chemicals can transfer from the equipment to the final product.
• Water Supply: The water used in the paper pulping process itself might be contaminated with PFAS from industrial discharge upstream, introducing the chemicals at the very beginning of the production cycle.

This complexity makes it challenging for businesses to ensure a clean supply chain. Simply receiving an assurance from a supplier that they do not intentionally add PFAS may not be sufficient. A thorough approach requires testing and verification to account for these other potential sources of contamination.

2. The Unseen Risks: Health and Environmental Consequences of PFAS Exposure

The utility of PFAS in food packaging comes at a cost, one that is not immediately visible on a balance sheet but is measured in potential harm to human health and ecological stability. The very chemical stability that makes these substances effective also makes them hazardous. They are built to last, and they do—in the environment, in wildlife, and in us. The journey from a grease-proof wrapper to the human bloodstream is a scientifically documented pathway that raises profound questions about the materials we allow to come into contact with our food. Examining this pathway requires a clear-eyed assessment of the science of chemical migration and the accumulating evidence of its biological impact.

From Package to Person: The Science of Chemical Migration

Chemical migration is the process by which substances move from a material, like food packaging, into the food it contains. This is not a theoretical risk; it is a well-established phenomenon in food science. For PFAS, the likelihood and rate of migration depend on several factors:

• Temperature: Hot foods significantly increase the rate at which PFAS can leach from packaging. A hot, greasy burger in a wrapper or soup in a molded fiber bowl creates ideal conditions for migration.
• Fat Content: PFAS are both lipophobic (oil-repelling) and hydrophobic (water-repelling), but they can more readily migrate into fatty and oily foods.
• Contact Time: The longer the food sits in the packaging, the more time the chemicals have to migrate. Food stored for extended periods in treated containers poses a greater risk.
• Type of PFAS: The chemical structure of the specific PFAS used matters. Older, long-chain PFAS were found to migrate readily. While newer, short-chain PFAS were hypothesized to be less bioaccumulative, studies show they also migrate from packaging and are highly mobile in the environment.

Once the PFAS have moved into the food, they are ingested along with the meal. Because our bodies lack an efficient mechanism to break down the powerful carbon-fluorine bond, these chemicals can accumulate over time. A study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters found that people who regularly ate microwave popcorn or fast food had significantly higher levels of PFAS in their blood than those who did not, directly linking consumption habits with chemical body burden. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) confirms that, like many other food contact chemicals, PFAS have been demonstrated to migrate from packaging into food, serving as a direct route of human exposure (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Documented Health Concerns: A Look at the Scientific Evidence

Decades of toxicological and epidemiological research have connected PFAS exposure to a troubling array of adverse health outcomes. It is important to approach this evidence with the understanding that it demonstrates association and risk, not a guarantee of illness in every exposed individual. However, the consistency of findings across numerous studies is compelling. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other international health bodies have linked PFAS exposure to:

• Metabolic and Liver Effects: Increased cholesterol levels are one of the most consistently documented effects. PFAS can also impact liver function, leading to elevated liver enzymes.
• Immune System Suppression: Exposure, even at low levels, can reduce the effectiveness of vaccines in children and increase susceptibility to infectious diseases.
• Cancers: Certain PFAS, particularly PFOA, have been linked to an increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer.
• Thyroid Hormone Disruption: These chemicals can interfere with the body's sensitive endocrine system, affecting thyroid function, which is critical for metabolism, growth, and development.
• Developmental and Reproductive Problems: Prenatal exposure to PFAS is associated with low birth weight, developmental delays in fetuses and infants, and decreased fertility.

These are not minor concerns. They represent serious disruptions to fundamental biological processes. The challenge for regulators and public health officials is that we are all exposed to a complex mixture of these chemicals from various sources, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact contribution of food packaging versus drinking water or consumer products. Nevertheless, food packaging remains a significant and, crucially, a preventable source of exposure.

The 'Forever' Problem: Environmental Persistence and Bioaccumulation

The term "forever chemicals" is not hyperbole. The chemical stability of PFAS means they persist in the environment for decades, if not centuries. When a PFAS-treated food container is discarded, its journey is far from over.

If it goes to a landfill, the PFAS can leach out over time as the paper material breaks down, contaminating the leachate—the liquid that percolates through the waste. This leachate can then contaminate groundwater and surface water if not properly contained and treated.

If the packaging is composted, the situation can be even more problematic. Molded fiber bowls and plates containing PFAS are often marketed as "compostable," but the PFAS do not break down during the composting process. Instead, they contaminate the finished compost. When this compost is applied to gardens or agricultural fields, the PFAS are taken up by plants, entering the food chain at its very base. From there, they can accumulate in animals and, ultimately, back in humans. This creates a circular contamination pathway that is incredibly difficult to break.

This process of increasing concentration in living organisms up the food chain is called biomagnification. Because PFAS bind to proteins in the blood and liver, they are not easily excreted and their concentration builds with each exposure, posing a long-term toxicological threat to wildlife and humans alike.

Global Contamination: Beyond the Landfill

The environmental impact of PFAS is not localized to disposal sites. These chemicals are highly mobile. They can travel long distances through water currents and atmospheric transport. As a result, PFAS have been detected in the most remote corners of the planet, from Arctic ice caps to the bodies of polar bears. They are found in rainwater, oceans, and soils worldwide.

This global distribution means that even communities far from any manufacturing or disposal site can be affected. It underscores the reality that what we put into our products and our waste streams does not simply disappear. The decision to use a persistent chemical in a disposable item like a food wrapper has consequences that ripple across ecosystems and generations. For businesses, this environmental liability is becoming an increasingly important factor in material selection. A company's environmental footprint is no longer just about carbon emissions or water usage; it extends to the chemical legacy of its products. Recognizing this reality is the first step toward making more responsible choices and aligning business practices with a growing global demand for environmental stewardship and a commitment to a circular economy.

3. The Shifting Landscape: Navigating Global PFAS Regulations in 2025

The scientific consensus on the risks of PFAS has spurred a wave of regulatory action across the globe. For businesses operating in or selling to markets in the United States and Europe, the legal landscape in 2025 is a complex and rapidly evolving patchwork of rules. What was permissible last year may be prohibited today, and what is allowed in one jurisdiction may be illegal in another. Staying compliant is no longer a matter of simply following a single federal standard; it requires active monitoring of state, national, and international policies. The overarching trend is clear: the tolerance for intentionally added PFAS in food packaging is diminishing, and the regulatory net is tightening.

A Patchwork of Policies: Federal vs. State-Level Bans in the USA

In the United States, regulatory action on PFAS has been characterized by a state-led approach, often moving faster and more comprehensively than federal agencies. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has secured voluntary phase-outs of certain long-chain PFAS from manufacturers, it has not enacted a broad federal ban on the entire class of chemicals in food packaging. This has created a vacuum that individual states have rushed to fill.

As of 2025, a significant number of states have passed legislation to ban or restrict the use of intentionally added PFAS in food packaging. These states include major markets like California, New York, Washington, and many others in New England and the Midwest. The specifics of these laws can vary:

• Scope: Some laws ban PFAS in all plant-fiber based food packaging, while others may target specific items like wrappers or food boats.
• Effective Dates: The implementation dates for these bans have been staggered, requiring businesses to track a complex compliance calendar.
• Definition of PFAS: Most laws define PFAS broadly to include the entire class of chemicals, preventing regrettable substitution where one banned PFAS is simply replaced by another, slightly different but potentially equally harmful one.

For example, California recently enacted an enforcement scheme for its ban on PFAS in plant-based food packaging, signaling a move from legislation to active implementation (packaginglaw.com). This patchwork creates significant challenges for national brands and distributors who must navigate differing requirements across state lines. A product that is legal to sell in one state could lead to fines and legal action in a neighboring one.

The European Union's Stance: Towards a Universal Restriction

The European Union has taken a more centralized and arguably more aggressive approach. Under its comprehensive chemical regulation framework, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), the EU is moving towards a "universal" restriction on the manufacture, use, and sale of thousands of PFAS. This is not just a proposal limited to food packaging but a broad action targeting the entire class of chemicals across nearly all uses.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also set a stringent tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for the sum of four major PFAS, signaling a low tolerance for these chemicals in the food supply. While the universal restriction is still moving through the legislative process, several EU member states, including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, have already implemented their own national bans or restrictions on PFAS in paper and board food packaging.

The direction in the EU is unmistakable: a near-total phase-out of PFAS in consumer applications, including food packaging, is on the horizon. Businesses that export to or operate within the EU must prepare for this reality. The EU’s approach effectively eliminates the state-by-state complexity seen in the US, but replaces it with a far-reaching regulation that will require a fundamental rethinking of many supply chains.

The Challenge of Compliance for International Businesses

For a business with an international footprint, this fragmented regulatory environment presents a formidable challenge. A leading packaging supplier must be able to provide products that meet the strictest standard applicable in any of its customers' markets. This means that the "California standard" or the "Danish standard" effectively becomes the de facto global standard for any company wishing to operate without complex, market-specific inventory.

The key challenges include:

1. Supply Chain Transparency: Companies must demand full material disclosure from their suppliers. It is no longer enough to know what a package is made of (e.g., paper); one must know what it is treated with.
2. Testing and Verification: Relying on supplier declarations alone can be risky. Many companies are now implementing their own testing protocols, often using methods like total organic fluorine (TOF) analysis, to verify that their packaging is truly free of intentionally added PFAS.
3. Navigating Definitions: The legal definition of "intentionally added PFAS" can be nuanced. Businesses must work with legal and technical experts to ensure their products and documentation meet the specific requirements of each jurisdiction.

Defining "PFAS-Free": What Do the Certifications Mean?

In response to the demand for safer products, a number of third-party certifications have emerged to help businesses and consumers identify PFAS-free packaging. Certifications from organizations like the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) are becoming increasingly important.

Previously, BPI certified many molded fiber products as "compostable" even if they contained PFAS. Recognizing the contradiction, BPI updated its standards and, as of 2020, requires all BPI-certified compostable products to be free of intentionally added PFAS. When a business sources packaging, looking for certifications like BPI can provide a valuable layer of assurance.

However, it is vital to understand what "PFAS-free" means in a regulatory and practical context. Most legislation bans the intentional addition of PFAS. Due to the potential for unintentional contamination from recycled content or machinery, trace amounts of PFAS might still be detectable even in products that are compliant with the law. This is why many standards set a maximum threshold for total organic fluorine (often 100 parts per million) to distinguish between intentional treatment and unavoidable, incidental contamination. For businesses, the goal is to source products that are certified as having no intentionally added PFAS, a commitment that demonstrates due diligence and a proactive stance on safety.

4. The Business Imperative: Why Moving Away from PFAS is Non-Negotiable

Beyond the complex web of regulations, there is a powerful business case for proactively eliminating PFAS from food packaging. The decision to transition to safer alternatives is no longer just a matter of compliance; it is a strategic imperative for risk management, brand protection, and long-term market competitiveness. In the court of public opinion and on the balance sheet, the continued use of "forever chemicals" represents a growing liability. Companies that recognize this shift and act decisively will be better positioned for future success, while those that lag behind risk being saddled with obsolete inventory, legal challenges, and a damaged reputation.

Mitigating Legal and Financial Risks

The legal risks associated with PFAS are substantial and multifaceted. As scientific evidence of harm accumulates and regulations tighten, the potential for litigation grows. These risks can manifest in several ways:

• Regulatory Enforcement: As states like California begin actively enforcing their bans, companies found to be non-compliant can face significant fines, product recalls, and stop-sale orders. The cost of non-compliance can far exceed the cost of transitioning to safer materials.
• Consumer Lawsuits: Class-action lawsuits are being filed against consumer brands and retailers for failing to disclose the presence of PFAS in their products or for making misleading "green" or "safe" claims. These lawsuits can result in costly settlements and damage to a company's public image.
• Shareholder Actions: Publicly traded companies may face pressure from investors who view the continued use of PFAS as a material risk to the company's financial health. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria are increasingly influencing investment decisions, and companies with poor chemical management policies may be penalized.
• Future Liability: The history of other hazardous materials like asbestos and lead serves as a cautionary tale. Companies involved in the manufacture or sale of PFAS-containing products could face massive liabilities for decades to come, related to environmental cleanup and personal injury claims.

By proactively moving to PFAS-free packaging, a business can significantly reduce its exposure to these legal and financial threats, creating a more stable and predictable operational environment.

Protecting Brand Reputation and Building Consumer Trust

In the digital age, brand reputation is a company's most valuable asset, and it can be irrevocably damaged overnight. Consumers are more informed and more concerned about chemical safety than ever before. News stories, reports from advocacy groups, and social media campaigns can quickly highlight brands that are still using PFAS in their packaging.

The narrative is simple and powerful: a company is knowingly putting potentially harmful chemicals in contact with the food it sells to families. This is a difficult position to defend. Conversely, companies that can authentically and transparently communicate their move away from PFAS have a powerful story to tell. It demonstrates:

• Responsibility: It shows the company takes its duty of care to its customers seriously.
• Transparency: It builds trust by being open about its materials and supply chain.
• Leadership: It positions the brand as a forward-thinking leader that is ahead of the regulatory curve and aligned with consumer values.

A commitment to sustainable practices is no longer a niche marketing angle; it is central to brand identity. Trust is built through actions, and the voluntary elimination of a chemical of concern is a clear and decisive action that resonates with today's consumers.

The Growing Demand for Sustainable and Safe Packaging

The market itself is driving the transition away from PFAS. The demand for packaging that is both sustainable and safe is not a passing trend; it is a fundamental shift in consumer and commercial expectations. Major food service companies, restaurant chains, and grocery retailers have already made public commitments to phase out PFAS from their food packaging.

This creates a powerful ripple effect throughout the supply chain. These large buyers are now requiring their suppliers to provide PFAS-free options. A packaging manufacturer or distributor that cannot meet this demand will find its market share shrinking rapidly. The question for a business is no longer if it will need to source PFAS-free packaging, but when.

This demand is driven by a more holistic understanding of sustainability. A product made from renewable sugarcane is not truly sustainable if it is coated in a "forever chemical" that pollutes compost and water systems. True sustainability encompasses the entire lifecycle of a product, including its chemical footprint and its end-of-life impact. By offering certified PFAS-free packaging, businesses can meet this sophisticated demand and cater to the most discerning and fastest-growing segment of the market.

Future-Proofing Your Supply Chain Against Stricter Regulations

The current regulatory landscape, as complex as it is, is likely just the beginning. The direction of policy in both the US and EU is toward even tighter restrictions on PFAS. A company that waits until a ban is fully implemented to change its packaging is operating in a reactive mode. This can lead to:

• Scrambling for Alternatives: A last-minute search for compliant packaging can lead to rushed decisions, higher costs, and potential supply disruptions.
• Obsolete Inventory: A company could be left with warehouses full of packaging that has suddenly become illegal to sell, resulting in a complete financial loss.
• Competitive Disadvantage: Competitors who made the switch earlier will have already secured reliable supplies of alternative materials and established their reputation as responsible brands.

Proactively transitioning to PFAS-free alternatives is a form of future-proofing. It aligns a company's supply chain with the inevitable direction of both regulation and market demand. It transforms a potential crisis into a planned transition, allowing for thoughtful material selection, performance testing, and a smooth rollout. This strategic approach minimizes disruption and positions the company to thrive in a future where chemical safety is not just an option, but a baseline expectation.

5. The Path Forward: Embracing Safe and Effective PFAS-Free Alternatives

The imperative to move away from PFAS in food packaging is clear, but it naturally leads to a critical question: what do we use instead? For years, the industry relied on PFAS because they were effective and inexpensive. The good news is that innovation has not stood still. Driven by regulatory pressure and market demand, material scientists and packaging manufacturers have developed a range of viable, commercially available alternatives that can provide the necessary functionality without the toxic legacy. The path forward involves understanding these alternatives, verifying their performance and safety, and choosing partners who are committed to this new standard of excellence.

Innovations in Material Science: Exploring Viable Replacements

The challenge is to replicate the grease- and water-resistant properties of PFAS using benign materials. There is no single "magic bullet" replacement; instead, the solution often lies in a combination of different materials and processes. Some of the most promising alternatives available today include:

• Bio-based Coatings: Plant-derived polymers and waxes, such as polylactic acid (PLA), can be applied as a thin coating to paper and paperboard. PLA is a compostable bioplastic made from corn starch or sugarcane that creates an effective barrier against moisture and grease. Other formulations use natural waxes or starches to achieve similar results.
• Densely Packed Fibers: Some innovative paper manufacturing techniques create an extremely dense and tightly woven fiber structure. This process, sometimes called mechanical calendering, physically closes the pores in the paper, making it naturally resistant to grease penetration without the need for any chemical additives.
• Clay and Mineral-Based Coatings: Using natural materials like clay or calcium carbonate as a coating can effectively fill the pores in paper, creating a barrier to liquids. These materials are inert, inexpensive, and have a long history of safe use in contact with food.
• Silicone and Other Polymers: While silicone is a synthetic polymer, it does not contain the carbon-fluorine bond that defines PFAS and is generally considered to be much safer and more stable. It is often used for non-stick applications like baking mats and can be adapted for use in food packaging.

The choice of alternative often depends on the specific application—the requirements for a hot soup container are different from those for a pastry bag. A key part of the transition is working with a knowledgeable supplier who can help identify the best and most cost-effective alternative for each need. Businesses can begin by exploring certified food-grade paper bag options to understand the range of available solutions.

Assessing Performance: Do Alternatives Match Up?

A common concern for businesses is whether PFAS-free alternatives can perform as well as the traditional, PFAS-treated materials. Will the burger wrapper leak? Will the compostable bowl get soggy? These are valid questions.

The reality in 2025 is that for the vast majority of food packaging applications, the performance of modern alternatives is comparable, and sometimes even superior, to PFAS-treated products. Extensive testing is done to ensure these new materials can withstand the rigors of the food service environment. This includes "kit tests" to measure grease resistance and hold-out tests to measure how long a container can hold liquid without leaking.

Of course, not all alternatives are created equal. It is crucial for businesses to vet their options. This can involve:

1. Requesting Samples: Conduct your own in-house testing with your specific food products to see how the packaging holds up under real-world conditions.
2. Reviewing Technical Data Sheets: Ask the supplier for performance data that quantifies the material's resistance to oil, water, and heat.
3. Seeking Case Studies: Ask for examples of other food service businesses that have successfully made the switch using the proposed alternative.

While there might have been performance gaps in the early days of PFAS-free development, the technology has matured significantly. The market now offers a wide selection of high-performance materials that meet the functional needs of businesses without compromising on safety.

How to Verify Your Packaging is Truly PFAS-Free

Given the complexities of unintentional contamination and the importance of compliance, how can a business be certain that the packaging it sources is genuinely free of intentionally added PFAS? This requires a multi-pronged approach to verification.

1. Demand Supplier Declarations: The first step is to get it in writing. Require your supplier to provide a formal declaration or certificate of compliance stating that their products do not contain intentionally added PFAS, and that they meet the regulatory requirements of all jurisdictions where you operate (e.g., a total organic fluorine content below 100 ppm).
2. Look for Third-Party Certifications: As mentioned, certifications from reputable bodies like BPI (for compostable items) provide an independent, third-party validation that the products meet strict PFAS-free standards. This shifts some of the verification burden from you to the certifier.
3. Conduct Independent Testing: For companies with high volumes or significant brand risk, it may be prudent to conduct periodic, independent lab testing on your packaging. This provides the ultimate verification and demonstrates the highest level of due diligence. The most common method, as noted in research and by organizations like Consumer Reports, is testing for total organic fluorine (TOF), which serves as a reliable marker for the presence of PFAS (consumerreports.org).

Trust, but verify. A robust verification process protects your business, your customers, and your brand.

Partnering with a Responsible Supplier: A Strategic Decision

Ultimately, the smoothest and most effective way to navigate the transition away from PFAS is to partner with a packaging supplier who is already an expert in this area. A responsible and knowledgeable supplier is more than just a vendor; they are a strategic partner in your success.

What should you look for in a supplier?

• Proactive Stance: They should be ahead of the regulations, not just reacting to them. They should have already done the research and development to offer a full range of PFAS-free alternatives.
• Transparency: They should be willing and able to provide all the necessary documentation, compliance certificates, and technical data for their products.
• Expertise: They should be able to guide you to the right alternative for your specific needs, balancing performance, cost, and sustainability goals.
• Global Reach: For international businesses, it is vital to work with a supplier who understands the complex global regulatory landscape and can ensure compliance across all your markets.

Making the switch to PFAS-free packaging is a critical step in aligning your business with the future of food service. It is a decision that protects public health, safeguards the environment, and strengthens your brand. By understanding the available alternatives, implementing a rigorous verification process, and choosing the right partners, this transition can be a seamless and powerful affirmation of your company's commitment to quality and responsibility.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

How can I tell if food packaging contains PFAS?

Unfortunately, you cannot tell just by looking. There is no visible difference between treated and untreated paper. The best indicators are third-party certifications like BPI (for compostable products) that explicitly forbid intentionally added PFAS, or a direct confirmation from the brand or manufacturer. Grease- and water-resistant paper products that lack such certification are suspect.

Are all types of paper packaging treated with PFAS?

No. Many paper products, like plain paper bags or cardboard boxes not intended for direct contact with greasy foods, are generally not treated. The concern is primarily with packaging designed to act as a barrier to oil and water, such as fast-food wrappers, molded fiber bowls, and microwave popcorn bags.

What is the difference between PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS?

PFOA and PFOS are two of the oldest and most-studied types of PFAS, often called "long-chain" chemicals. Due to significant health concerns, they have been largely phased out of production in the US and Europe. However, they were often replaced by "short-chain" PFAS. While industry initially claimed these were safer, emerging science suggests they pose similar health and environmental risks, which is why regulations are now targeting the entire class of thousands of PFAS chemicals.

Are PFAS-free alternatives more expensive?

Initially, some PFAS-free alternatives were more expensive. However, as demand has surged and production has scaled up, the costs have become much more competitive. In many cases, the price for high-performance, PFAS-free options is now comparable to the older, treated materials. Any small price difference is often viewed as a worthwhile investment in risk mitigation and brand protection.

What are the main sources of PFAS exposure besides food packaging?

PFAS are used in a wide variety of products. Major sources of exposure include contaminated drinking water (often near industrial sites or military bases), stain-resistant carpets and upholstery, waterproof apparel, some cosmetics, and non-stick cookware. Food packaging is considered a significant and direct route of dietary exposure.

Is it possible to remove PFAS from my body?

The body excretes PFAS very slowly, which is why they accumulate. The "half-life" (the time it takes for the body to eliminate half of the amount present) can be several years for legacy PFAS like PFOA and PFOS. There is currently no established medical treatment to actively remove PFAS from the body. The most effective strategy is to minimize ongoing exposure from all sources.

What specific actions is the FDA taking regarding PFAS in food packaging?

As of 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has secured voluntary market phase-outs from manufacturers for certain types of PFAS (those containing 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol) used in food packaging. While the FDA continues to review the safety of other PFAS, it has not yet enacted a broad, mandatory ban on the entire class, which is why state-level legislation has been so critical in driving the market transition.

Conclusion

The conversation surrounding the question, are PFAS used in food packaging, has fundamentally shifted. It is no longer a niche concern for scientists and activists but a central issue for businesses, regulators, and consumers worldwide. The evidence is compelling: these "forever chemicals," while functionally useful, pose undeniable risks to human health and environmental stability. Their persistence means that every decision to use them in a disposable product has consequences that will last for generations.

In 2025, the path forward is not one of debate but of action. A convergence of stringent regulations, growing consumer demand for safety, and the very real threat of legal and reputational damage has made the transition to PFAS-free packaging a non-negotiable aspect of responsible business. Fortunately, this is not a journey that businesses must take alone or without a map. Innovation in material science has provided a robust portfolio of safe, effective, and cost-competitive alternatives.

By embracing these new materials, companies do more than simply comply with the law. They build trust with their customers, future-proof their operations against even stricter standards to come, and take a meaningful step toward a more sustainable and less toxic world. The choice to eliminate PFAS is a powerful statement of a brand's values and a strategic investment in its own long-term health and success.

References

Consumer Reports. (2022, March 24). Dangerous PFAS chemicals are in your food packaging. consumerreports.org

Hirose Paper Manufacturing. (2025, January 13). High-performance materials as alternatives to PFAS. hirose-paper-mfg.co.jp

Keller and Heckman LLP. (2024, August 10). California enacts enforcement scheme for PFAS ban in plant-based food packaging. PackagingLaw.com. packaginglaw.com

Liu, C., Yu, G., & Wang, Y. (2024). Unveiling per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination in Chinese paper products and assessing their exposure risk. Bioresource Technology, 401, 130761. sciencedirect.com

Posner, S., & Geller, A. (2024). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food packaging: Migration, toxicity, and regulation. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 23(3), e13296. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov