California PFAS Food Packaging Law (AB 1200): What Food Businesses Need to Know

California AB 1200: An Overview

California was among the first states in the nation to restrict PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in food packaging. Signed into law on October 5, 2021, Assembly Bill 1200 specifically targets plant fiber-based food packaging — the molded fiber containers, paper bowls, and compostable clamshells that many food businesses rely on daily.

The law took effect on January 1, 2023, making California one of the earliest states to have an enforceable PFAS food packaging ban. For food businesses operating in California — restaurants, food trucks, catering companies, and packaged food brands — understanding AB 1200 is an important step in staying on the right side of the law.

This guide covers what AB 1200 requires, who it applies to, what packaging is affected, and practical steps your business can take to verify compliance. For a broader look at PFAS regulations across all states, see our complete guide to PFAS bans.

Regulation Details

What Packaging Is Covered

AB 1200 applies exclusively to plant fiber-based food packaging. This includes packaging made from materials like molded pulp, bagasse (sugarcane fiber), bamboo fiber, wheat straw, and other plant-derived fibers. These products are widely used in takeout and food service because they are marketed as compostable or eco-friendly alternatives to plastic and foam.

Specific packaging types covered under AB 1200 include:

• Molded fiber plates and bowls
• Clamshell takeout containers
• Pizza boxes (when made from plant-fiber materials)
• Paper bags and wraps
• Paper trays and food boats
• Paper cups and cup sleeves
• Fiber-based food wraps and liners

What Is Not Covered

An important distinction: AB 1200 does not cover non-plant-fiber packaging. Traditional plastic containers, polystyrene foam, aluminum foil, and metal cans fall outside the scope of this law. Many food businesses use a mix of packaging materials, so it is worth auditing your full packaging inventory to determine which items fall under AB 1200 and which do not.

That said, the fact that a container is made from plastic does not necessarily mean it is PFAS-free. Many businesses choose to evaluate all of their food-contact packaging for PFAS regardless of whether a specific law requires it, particularly as regulations in other states continue to expand in scope.

The 100 ppm Threshold

California's AB 1200 is notable for establishing a specific measurable threshold: 100 parts per million (ppm) of total organic fluorine (TOF). This sets it apart from several other state laws that simply ban "intentionally added" PFAS without defining a numeric limit.

What Is Total Organic Fluorine?

Total organic fluorine (TOF) is a screening measurement that captures the aggregate amount of fluorine-containing organic compounds in a material. Rather than testing for each individual PFAS compound separately — a process that would be prohibitively expensive given the thousands of PFAS chemicals in existence — TOF testing provides a single number that indicates whether fluorinated compounds are present above a given level.

The 100 ppm threshold means that plant fiber-based food packaging sold in California must contain less than 100 parts per million of total organic fluorine. Packaging that tests below this level is considered compliant, even if trace amounts of PFAS are detected. This is a practical acknowledgment that some level of background contamination may exist in the environment and in manufacturing processes.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Violations of AB 1200 carry civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day per violation. Enforcement is handled by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Because each day of non-compliance can constitute a separate violation, penalties can accumulate quickly for businesses that continue to sell or distribute non-compliant packaging.

Additionally, California's Proposition 65 (discussed below) may provide a separate avenue for enforcement through private right of action lawsuits. This dual-enforcement structure makes California one of the more consequential states for PFAS food packaging compliance.

The following table compares California's penalty structure with several other states that have enacted PFAS food packaging laws:

Who Is Liable

Under AB 1200, manufacturers and distributors of plant fiber-based food packaging bear primary liability. This means the companies that produce and sell packaging materials are responsible for ensuring those products comply with the 100 ppm TOF threshold.

Even though restaurants are not directly liable under AB 1200, businesses that sell food in California may still face indirect consequences. Consumer awareness of PFAS is growing, and businesses seen as using packaging with known PFAS contamination may face reputational risk. Proactive compliance verification can help protect both your operations and your brand.

Proposition 65 Considerations

California's Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) is a separate regulatory framework that many food businesses in the state are already familiar with. PFOA and PFOS — two of the most well-studied PFAS compounds — are listed under Proposition 65 as chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

This listing creates an additional compliance layer beyond AB 1200. Even if a piece of packaging meets the 100 ppm TOF threshold under AB 1200, the presence of specific listed compounds like PFOA or PFOS at levels that trigger Prop 65 reporting requirements could necessitate separate warnings to consumers and employees.

Private Right of Action

One of the most significant aspects of Proposition 65 is its private right of action provision. This allows private citizens and advocacy groups to file lawsuits against businesses that fail to provide required Prop 65 warnings. These "bounty hunter" lawsuits have historically targeted food businesses in California and can result in significant settlement costs.

For food businesses, this means that even though AB 1200 targets manufacturers and distributors, Prop 65 exposure may extend to retailers and food service operators who knowingly expose consumers to listed PFAS compounds without adequate warnings. Consulting with a qualified attorney about your specific Prop 65 obligations is advisable.

Steps to Compliance

The following steps can help food businesses operating in California verify and document their compliance with AB 1200:

1. Identify your plant fiber-based packaging. Conduct an inventory of all food-contact packaging your business uses. Separate plant fiber-based items (molded fiber, paper, bagasse, bamboo) from non-plant-fiber items (plastic, foam, foil). AB 1200 only applies to the former.
2. Request Certificates of Analysis (COAs) from suppliers. Contact each supplier of plant fiber-based packaging and ask for a current Certificate of Analysis or Certificate of Compliance that includes total organic fluorine (TOF) test results. Reputable suppliers should be able to provide this documentation.
3. Verify TOF levels are below 100 ppm. Review the COAs to confirm that TOF results are below the 100 ppm threshold. Be wary of suppliers who provide only general "PFAS-free" claims without specific test data. A compliant COA should reference a recognized test method and report TOF in parts per million.
4. Document your compliance efforts. Maintain organized records of supplier communications, COAs, and any independent testing results. This documentation can be valuable if your business ever needs to demonstrate due diligence to regulators, auditors, or customers.
5. Evaluate Prop 65 exposure. If any of your packaging tests show detectable levels of PFOA or PFOS specifically, consider consulting with a Prop 65 compliance specialist to determine whether additional warnings or disclosures are required.
6. Monitor for regulatory updates. PFAS regulation is evolving rapidly. California may lower its TOF threshold, expand coverage to non-plant-fiber packaging, or add new PFAS compounds to the Prop 65 list. Staying informed about upcoming changes helps avoid last-minute scrambles to find compliant alternatives.