Are PFAS Used in Food Packaging in 2026? A US Buyer’s Compliance Brief

Introduction

If you source disposable food packaging for a US restaurant chain, grocery brand, or commissary, you have almost certainly had a buyer or QA manager ask you one question in the past 18 months: Are PFAS used in food packaging that we ship? The short answer is that the dominant use case — grease-proofing additives on paper and paperboard — has been removed from the US market under a voluntary phase-out that FDA formally closed in early 2024. The longer answer is more uncomfortable: not every PFAS compound is gone, not every jurisdiction agrees on what counts as “PFAS-free,” and the EU’s packaging regulation closes the loophole hard in August 2026. This brief is designed to give US foodservice buyers a working playbook for what to ask your supplier, what documents to require on each PO, and which SKUs can stay on your approved list without a reformulation project.

Key numbers at a glance

Data point	Value	Source
FDA-cited positive rate of total fluorine in US fast-food wrappers, post-phase-out	< 1% to ≈ 6% depending on category	FDA April 2024 PFAS update
PFAS-related Food Contact Notifications (FCNs) withdrawn in 2024–2025	35	FDA / Federal Register
EU PPWR cap on individual non-polymeric PFAS, food-contact	≤ 25 ppb (effective Aug 2026)	Regulation (EU) 2025/40
EU PPWR cap on total non-polymeric PFAS, food-contact	≤ 250 ppb	Regulation (EU) 2025/40
EU PPWR cap on total fluorine	≤ 50 ppm	Regulation (EU) 2025/40
US EPA drinking-water MCL, PFOA / PFOS	4.0 ppt (ng/L)	EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, April 2024

What PFAS Are and Why They Were Ever Used in Food Packaging

PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — is a family of roughly 12,000+ human-made chemicals defined by a chain of carbon–fluorine bonds. That bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry, which is exactly why PFAS coatings do three things almost nothing else can: they repel oil, they repel water, and they survive the heat of a fryer, an oven, or a hot-fill line. For a piece of paper that has to hold a greasy slice of pizza, a buttery croissant, or a microwave popcorn bag, those three properties were uniquely valuable — until the science caught up with the chemistry. Understanding the chemistry is also the only way to answer the operational question buyers keep asking: are PFAS used in food packaging at any step of the supply chain we touch?

The Four FDA-Authorized PFAS Contact Uses (Pre-2024)

Under Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA maintained a list of authorized PFAS uses for food-contact materials, which boiled down to four buckets:

(1) non-stick coatings on cookware and bakeware,

(2) processing aids used in the manufacture of other food-contact polymers,

(3) gaskets and seals, and

(4) grease-proofing agents for paper and paperboard. The fourth bucket — grease-proofing — was the one that was structurally embedded into the disposable food packaging supply chain, and is the one that the 2020 voluntary phase-out removed.

The complete, still-current canonical list is published on FDA’s “Authorized Uses of PFAS in Food Contact Applications” page, and is the document any qualified supplier should be able to reproduce line by line.

The “Forever Chemical” Problem

The same C–F bond that makes PFAS useful in a fryer is what makes them persist in the human body and the environment. The half-life of PFOA in human serum is estimated at 2–4 years; for PFOS it is roughly 4–8 years. Studies reviewed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have linked PFOA / PFOS exposure to reduced antibody response to vaccination, elevated cholesterol, decreased birth weight, and increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer. The Harvard School of Public Health’s Philippe Grandjean framed the regulatory gap bluntly in a 2017 interview: “The Danish Ministry of Foods forged an agreement with food-packaging manufacturers to produce fluorine-free materials … I would recommend that the FDA initiate a similar initiative so exposures to these toxic substances can be minimized.” The Minnesota Department of Health acted on that science first — issuing the first US health-based guidance value for PFOA in 2017 (35 ppt drinking-water) and tightening it twice since.

The US Regulatory Cliff Edge: 2020 → 2025

In the United States, the removal of PFAS from the dominant food-contact use case did not happen through legislation. It happened through a targeted voluntary phase-out that FDA deliberately structured as a soft cliff edge.

The 2020 Voluntary Phase-Out and the 2024 Confirmation

In February 2020, three PFAS manufacturers — Chemours, Daikin, and 3M/Solutia — committed to a phased market exit for short-chain and long-chain PFAS used in paper and paperboard food packaging. FDA set a deadline of January 1, 2024, with a six-month sell-through window into mid-2024. On February 28, 2024, the agency confirmed the outcome: Jim Jones, then FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, announced that food-contact substances containing PFAS “are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the US.” The original announcement is preserved in full on PR Newswire, and the underlying technical page lives at FDA’s market phase-out hub.

Two things happened in parallel. First, FDA withdrew or invalidated the 35 PFAS-related Food Contact Notifications that had been on file, eliminating the legal basis for those substances to be used in food contact at all. Second, FDA’s “Authorized Uses” page now reflects that the grease-proofing bucket is effectively empty — there is no longer a sanctioned pathway to put PFAS into paper-based packaging for US foodservice use.

H.R. 9864 — The “Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act”

The voluntary phase-out is not a statute. To turn the de facto ban into a positive prohibition that survives a change of administration, Representative Mark Pocan introduced H.R. 9864 in September 2024. The bill would amend Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to bar the introduction of food packaging with intentionally added PFAS into US commerce starting January 1, 2025, and direct FDA to issue a final rule by 2027 covering all other food-contact PFAS uses. The current text is tracked on Congress.gov. At the time of writing, the bill has cleared committee in the House but has not completed Senate and Presidential action. That matters operationally: until the bill lands, the law of the land is still the voluntary phase-out combined with whatever state-level prohibition or disclosure applies at the delivery destination.

State-by-State Patchwork: CA, NY, ME, CO, MN

The practical truth for a multi-state US buyer is that you are not operating against one rule — you are operating against seven. The table below summarizes the most material state regimes for food packaging as of late 2025.

California is the canonical case study — the first state to translate NRDC and Environmental Working Group advocacy into a hard sales ban. NRDC’s announcement, “California Leaders Approve Bill to Ban PFAS in Paper-Based Food Packaging”, captures the legal mechanics. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 100 ppm total fluorine threshold is now the de facto product specification that most national chains write into their supplier purchase orders, regardless of where the package ends up physically delivered.

Beyond the US — EU PPWR, Japan, and Asian Markets

If your brand ships into the EU or Japan — even via a US distributor — your supplier’s compliance stack needs a second layer of documentation, because the EU is stricter than the US on PFAS and Japan is moving fast on PFOA.

PPWR (EU 2025/40) and the 25 ppb / 250 ppb / 50 ppm Caps

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 — the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation — became enforceable on August 12, 2026, with no transition period for existing stock placed on the EU market after that date. Article 5 of the regulation sets three fluoride-based caps on food-contact packaging:

1. Individual non-polymeric PFAS: ≤ 25 parts per billion
2. Total non-polymeric PFAS: ≤ 250 ppb
3. Total fluorine: ≤ 50 parts per million

The third cap is the one that catches most suppliers flat-footed — it is a sum-of-all-fluorine measurement, not a sum-of-individually-named-PFAS measurement, and it picks up fluorinated processing aids, fluorinated mold-release sprays, and even trace fluorinated additives that are not technically on any PFAS list. A supplier who passes testing for “no PFAS detected” using a targeted LC-MS/MS method may still fail the 50 ppm total-fluorine test using ion-exchange chromatography after combustion. The full regulation text is available on EUR-Lex.

Japan PFOA Restriction (2024–2025)

Japan moved unilaterally on PFOA in late 2024 under its Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc. PFOA and its isomers were designated a Class I Specified Chemical Substance on September 10, 2024. The cross-cutting prohibition on PFOA-related compounds (13 substances) became effective January 10, 2025, which effectively bans the import and sale of finished food packaging containing these compounds. For US exporters into Japan, the practical implication is that PFOA and the named related compounds must be undetectable on the import declaration — a bar set by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare’s food-contact positive list, which is the documentation equivalent of the FDA/USDA system but materially stricter for fluorinated substances.

Where PFAS Are Still Used in Food Packaging: High-Risk vs. Low-Risk SKUs in 2026

The single most useful question a buyer can ask a packaging supplier is “which of my current SKUs is highest-risk, and which is essentially safe?” The 2017 Silent Spring Institute study (republished via The Verge with interviews from Laurel Schaider and Arlene Blum) sampled more than 400 wrappers from 27 fast-food chains and remains the empirical baseline.

High-Risk SKUs: Wrappers, Popcorn Bags, Takeout Paperboard

The Silent Spring data broke down by product category:

The mechanism is simple: paper and paperboard are hydrophilic by default — they fall apart the moment a greasy slice touches them. PFAS — applied as either a fluorochemical surface coating or as internal sizing — was the standard fix. That category is the one FDA specifically targeted, and the one any US buyer should flag for additional documentation: ask for a third-party total-fluorine test on every paperboard SKU shipped into CA, NY, ME, CO, or MN.

Lower-Risk SKUs: Rigid PP / PS / OPS / PET, PLA, Bagasse

Rigid mono-material plastics — polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), oriented polystyrene (OPS), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) — are a structurally different story. These materials do not need a fluorinated coating to hold oil or water; the polymer itself is hydrophobic. Intentionally added PFAS in the polymer matrix of these resins is rare. What you need to rule out is fluorinated processing aids used in pellet extrusion or mold release — typically PFPE (perfluoropolyether) oils — that can leave a residual film on the finished product.

A high-quality PP sushi tray or PET clamshell from a vertically integrated supplier should test below 50 ppm total fluorine with no observable non-polymeric PFAS, without any reformulation. PLA and bagasse follow the same logic — these are intrinsically water-resistant fibers or bio-resins that do not need fluorinated additives for functionality.

For US buyers evaluating a one-stop partner, the practical question becomes: can the same factory document FDA, EU 1935/2004 food-contact compliance, and Japan MHLW positive-list compliance for the same PP sushi tray or PET clamshell? Suppliers who can hand back a three-jurisdiction dossier for an identical SKU — typically vertically integrated operations with in-house R&D, in-line resin QC, and per-batch material inspection — are the ones worth putting on the preferred-vendor list. They collapse three quality audits into one PO, which is exactly the audit-economics problem most US foodservice procurement teams are now trying to solve.

How to Read a Supplier’s PFAS Compliance Documentation

The five documents that US foodservice buyers should expect on every food-contact PFAS question, in order of how much they actually answer:

1. FDA Food Contact Substance Notification (FCN) or Threshold of Regulation exemption — confirms the underlying resin system is on the US positive list.
2. Third-party total-fluorine test report (combustion + ion chromatography, ASTM D7359 or equivalent) — the actual evidence of PFAS absence for paperboard and fiber SKUs. Look for a report dated within the last 12 months and a method LOD ≤ 25 ppm.
3. EU 1935/2004 + (EU) 2025/40 (PPWR) compliance statement — covers the EU buyer. For US suppliers exporting into Europe, this is now the difference between a delivered shipment and a refused one at Rotterdam.
4. Japan MHLW positive-list statement or migration test — covers the Japan buyer.
5. ISO 9001 certificate and ISO 14001 (or progress) statement — environmental management is the predictor of whether the supplier will keep up with the next regulatory step (PFHxS bans, biodegradable content rules, recycled-content thresholds).

A supplier who can produce all five for a single SKU — across three regulatory jurisdictions, with batch-level traceability rather than annual statements — is the operational answer to the question “are PFAS used in food packaging?”

Perguntas Frequentes

Are PFAS still used in plastic food containers in 2026?

Not as a functional additive in rigid PP, PS, OPS, or PET containers made by major North-American and Asian suppliers. The 2024 FDA confirmation effectively emptied the grease-proofing paper / paperboard use case from the US market. The remaining exposure routes to verify on every shipment are (a) fluorinated processing aids used in extrusion (test with a total-fluorine method), and (b) any paper or fiber component that touches the food.

Does “BPA-free” mean “PFAS-free”?

No. They are unrelated chemistries. BPA (bisphenol A) is a polycarbonate / epoxy-lining monomer; PFAS are fluorinated surfactants and polymers. A BP-substitute plastic can contain PFAS added during processing, and a paperboard “BPA-free” label tells you nothing about whether a fluorinated grease-proofing agent was used. The two certifications need to be requested separately.

Is PLA packaging PFAS-free?

PLA (polylactic acid) bioplastic and bagasse / molded-pulp fiber are intrinsically water-resistant through their chemistry and crystalline structure, not through additives — so they are typically PFAS-free in the polymer. However, fiber-based “compostable” clamshells sometimes use a PFAS inner coating for hot-food applications. Buyer due diligence: confirm with a third-party total-fluorine test on the specific SKU rather than relying on a “compostable” claim on the spec sheet.

What documents should my US supplier provide for PFAS compliance?

At minimum: a current (within 12 months) third-party total-fluorine test per the ASTM D7359 method or equivalent; an FDA FCN or regulatory status letter for the resin; a written statement confirming compliance with California AB 1200 (≤ 100 ppm total fluorine) and the destination state’s regime; and — if you also ship to the EU or Japan — a PPWR (EU 2025/40) compliance statement and a Japan MHLW test report.

Will US QSRs keep buying my PFAS-positive stock?

No. National QSR and grocery private-label buyers have already issued PFAS-restriction purchase orders. As of mid-2025, McDonald’s, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, SweetGreen, Chipotle, and most major grocery private-label brands require third-party PFAS-positive declarations on packaging. Stock with the prior-generation fluorochemical additives is being actively de-listed.

Conclusão

For a US foodservice or grocery buyer, the answer to “are PFAS used in food packaging” in 2026 is layered: paper and paperboard food packaging is functionally de-PFASed under FDA’s voluntary phase-out and a thickening patchwork of state bans; rigid plastic packaging was never the dominant PFAS use case to begin with; and the EU’s PPWR will seal the last loopholes from August 2026 onward. The three actions that pay back within a quarter are: (1) request an updated third-party total-fluorine test report for every paperboard and fiber SKU on every PO; (2) anchor the approved-vendor list on rigid PP / PS / PLA / bagasse SKUs that pass testing for all three destinations (US, EU, Japan) on a single quality dossier; and (3) update your RFP template to include both the California 100 ppm total fluorine threshold and the PPWR 25 ppb individual / 250 ppb total / 50 ppm total fluorine triad.

A vertically integrated supplier that publishes FDA + EU + Japan MHLW compliance documentation for the same SKU line — and lets you trace compliance through a single point of contact, with per-batch material inspection rather than annual statements — is the operationally efficient answer to a regulatory environment that is not going to get simpler over the next decade. Suppliers that brought PLA processing and bio-resin capacity online early (well before the August 2026 PPWR cliff) are also the ones best positioned to absorb the next regulatory wave: PFHxS phase-outs, mandatory PCR-content thresholds, and EU recyclability grading. The buyers who win the next two years are the ones who lock those suppliers in now, while the FDA / EU / state-law patchwork is still being litigated in Congress and the courts.

ManLuenpack

ManLuen Plastic Packaging Company, especializada na produção de Embalagens de Alimentos de Plástico há mais de 20 anos. Os nossos produtos são feitos de PP virgem e livre de BPA, em conformidade com os padrões da FDA e Europeus.

www.manluenpack.com