Unwrapping the Problem: PFAS in Food Packaging and the Search for Alternatives
The next time you open a fast food wrapper, unwrap a microwave popcorn bag, or lift a pizza slice from its box, you may be touching PFAS-treated packaging. Grease-resistant paper and paperboard food packaging has used PFAS compounds—particularly per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances applied as aqueous coatings—since the 1960s. These coatings prevent greasy foods from soaking through packaging, maintain the package’s structural integrity, and prevent food from sticking. As the health and environmental consequences of PFAS in food packaging have become clear, regulatory agencies and food companies are driving a major reformulation of food contact materials—a transition that is well underway but not yet complete.
How PFAS Migrate from Packaging to Food
PFAS in food packaging migrate into food through direct contact—particularly under warm, moist, acidic, or fatty conditions that accelerate chemical transfer from packaging surface to food content. Studies measuring PFAS migration from packaging into food simulants (oils, alcohols, and acidic solutions that mimic food chemical properties) have demonstrated that PFAS compounds transfer from paper packaging coatings at rates that depend on PFAS compound identity, temperature, contact time, and the chemical nature of the food. For fatty foods like French fries, pizza, and popcorn—precisely the foods most commonly packaged in PFAS-treated containers—migration rates are among the highest measured.
Human biomonitoring data provides epidemiological evidence consistent with food packaging as a PFAS exposure pathway. Studies comparing PFAS blood levels in populations with frequent fast food consumption to those with lower fast food consumption find positive associations even after controlling for other potential PFAS sources, suggesting that grease-resistant food packaging contributes to dietary PFAS exposure beyond the PFAS present in the food itself. For children—who consume fast food more frequently on a body-weight-adjusted basis than adults—packaging migration may represent a disproportionate exposure contribution.
Regulatory Phase-Outs: Progress and Gaps
The FDA has received voluntary market withdrawal commitments from manufacturers of long-chain PFAS (C8-based) food contact substances, formally withdrawing regulatory authorization for PFOA-based food contact applications in 2016. C6-based PFAS food contact coatings received similar treatment in 2020, with manufacturers voluntarily withdrawing food contact substance notifications. However, the withdrawal of regulatory authorization for specific chemistries does not necessarily mean these compounds were immediately eliminated from market—manufacturers had transition periods, inventory use was permitted, and some products manufactured before withdrawal continued to be sold.
State legislation has provided additional regulatory pressure. California, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Massachusetts have enacted statutes restricting PFAS in food packaging, with effective dates ranging from 2022 to 2025. These state laws are driving national reformulation as food service companies and packaging manufacturers prefer uniform formulations over state-specific product versions. The FDA’s own regulatory review of remaining PFAS food contact authorizations is ongoing, with further voluntary and mandatory phase-outs expected.
Alternative Technologies Filling the Gap
Non-fluorinated alternatives for grease-resistant food packaging include plant-based coatings derived from cellulose, starch, zein (corn protein), and casein (milk protein), as well as synthetic polymer coatings using polyethylene, polylactic acid (PLA), and aqueous dispersion coatings that do not contain PFAS. Mineral barrier coatings—clay or silica-based dispersions applied to paper—provide greaseproof properties through physical barrier mechanisms rather than surface energy reduction. The performance of these alternatives varies: some meet the demanding conditions of high-grease, high-temperature food contact applications; others provide adequate performance for less demanding uses. The food packaging industry’s multi-year reformulation effort is advancing alternative technologies that in many cases now match PFAS performance at competitive cost.