Minnesota PFAS Food Packaging Ban: Why Restaurants Are Directly Liable

Why Minnesota Is the Most Dangerous State for Food Service Operators

If you operate a restaurant, food truck, catering company, or any food service business in Minnesota, you need to pay close attention. Minnesota's PFAS food packaging ban, effective January 1, 2024, is unlike any other state law in the country — and the difference could cost you thousands of dollars.

Most state PFAS bans target manufacturers and distributors. Minnesota goes further. It explicitly names end users of food packaging — meaning the restaurant that serves food in a PFAS-containing container — as a liable party. This is not a theoretical risk. It is the law today.

The ban covers all food packaging, not just plant-fiber or molded fiber materials. Every clamshell, every takeout container, every wrapper, every bag your business uses to serve or package food falls under this regulation. There is no carve-out for plastic, foil, or any other material type.

For a complete picture of how Minnesota compares to other states, see our comprehensive guide to PFAS food packaging bans in 2026.

Minnesota Regulation Details

Below is a detailed breakdown of the Minnesota PFAS food packaging regulation, including effective dates, scope, covered parties, thresholds, and penalties.

Why Minnesota Is Different: Direct Restaurant Liability

In virtually every other US state with a PFAS food packaging ban — California, New York, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington — the law targets the supply chain. Manufacturers cannot make packaging with intentionally added PFAS. Distributors cannot sell it. But the restaurant or food truck operator at the end of that chain? In those states, they are not named as a liable party.

Minnesota breaks this pattern entirely. The statute explicitly includes "users" of food packaging in its definition of covered parties. This is not ambiguous. It is not subject to interpretation. If you are a food service operator in Minnesota and you use packaging that contains intentionally added PFAS, you are in violation of the law — regardless of what your supplier told you.

This distinction matters enormously for small food businesses. In other states, if non-compliant packaging slips through the supply chain, enforcement actions are directed at the manufacturer or distributor who sold it. In Minnesota, the enforcement action can come directly to your restaurant, your food truck, or your catering operation.

Think of it this way: in most states, PFAS compliance is your supplier's problem. In Minnesota, it is your problem.

What Packaging Is Covered

Minnesota's ban covers all food packaging. This is a critical distinction from states like California and New York, which only regulate plant-fiber based packaging (molded fiber plates, bowls, and clamshells).

Under the Minnesota law, the following are all covered:

• Plant-fiber packaging — molded fiber clamshells, bowls, plates, pizza boxes, paper bags, paper wraps
• Plastic containers — polystyrene foam, polypropylene clamshells, PET containers
• Coated paperboard — hot and cold beverage cups, French fry containers, sandwich wrappers
• Foil and composite packaging — foil-lined bags, multi-layer pouches
• Any other food-contact packaging material — if it touches food and it is packaging, it is covered

This "all food packaging" scope means you cannot solve the problem by switching from fiber-based containers to plastic alternatives. Every material type must be PFAS-free.

Penalties: $10,000 Per Violation

Minnesota imposes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. Because restaurants are directly liable, this penalty can be assessed against your business — not just against your packaging supplier.

Consider the scale of exposure. If an enforcement action identifies multiple non-compliant packaging types in use at your establishment, each type could constitute a separate violation. A restaurant using PFAS-containing clamshells, cups, and wrappers could face penalties for each item.

The table below compares Minnesota's penalty structure with other major states. Note that Minnesota is one of the only states where the "Restaurant Liable?" column reads "Yes."

While Connecticut has both civil and criminal penalties that technically exceed Minnesota's on the high end, Connecticut does not hold restaurants directly liable. This makes Minnesota's $10,000-per-violation penalty far more relevant to food service operators, because it is the penalty you face — not one your supplier faces.

What Restaurant Owners Need to Do Right Now

If you operate a food service business in Minnesota, here are the concrete steps you should take to protect yourself:

1. Do Not Rely Solely on Supplier Claims

A label that says "eco-friendly" or even "PFAS-free" is not sufficient. Marketing claims are not legally binding documentation. Under Minnesota law, you are the liable party, so you need more than a sales pitch.

2. Request Written PFAS-Free Certifications

Ask every packaging supplier for a written Certificate of Compliance (CoC) or Certificate of Analysis (CoA) that explicitly states the product does not contain intentionally added PFAS. The certificate should reference testing methodology (such as total organic fluorine testing) and provide specific test results. See our supplier documentation template guide for exactly what to request.

3. Maintain Your Own Compliance Records

Keep copies of all supplier certifications, test results, and correspondence on file. If your business is ever subject to an enforcement inquiry, having organized documentation demonstrating your due diligence efforts is essential. Date-stamp everything and maintain a log of when certifications were received and when they expire.

4. Consider Verified PFAS-Free Suppliers

Switching to suppliers who provide comprehensive PFAS-free documentation as a standard part of their service reduces your compliance burden significantly. Our supplier directory includes vendors who provide written PFAS-free certifications and Certificates of Analysis.

5. Monitor for Regulatory Updates

PFAS regulations are evolving rapidly. Minnesota's law could be amended, enforcement guidance could change, and threshold definitions could be updated. Subscribe to regulatory alerts so you are not caught off guard by changes. PFAS Packaging Check's alert service monitors changes across all regulated jurisdictions and notifies you when action is needed.

Exemptions

Minnesota's PFAS food packaging ban has a narrow exemption: packaging where PFAS is present as trace contamination below 100 ppm total organic fluorine (TOF) and was not intentionally added is exempt from the ban.

This exemption is important to understand correctly. It does not mean packaging with less than 100 ppm TOF is automatically compliant. The PFAS must also not have been intentionally added. If a manufacturer deliberately uses PFAS-containing treatments or coatings, the packaging is non-compliant regardless of the measured TOF level.

In practice, trace contamination can occur through environmental exposure, manufacturing equipment, or recycled content. The exemption exists to avoid penalizing businesses for genuinely unavoidable background contamination. However, it is not a loophole — if your packaging tests above 100 ppm TOF, or if PFAS was intentionally added at any level, the exemption does not apply.

Further Reading

• PFAS Food Packaging Bans in 2026: The Complete Guide — our pillar guide covering all 14+ US states, Australia, and the EU
• Supplier Documentation Template — exactly what to request from your packaging suppliers to build a compliance file
• How to Check Your Packaging for PFAS — testing methods, what to look for, and when to get a lab test
• PFAS-Free Supplier Directory — verified suppliers who provide written certifications

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Regulations are subject to change. Consult the actual legislation and a qualified attorney for compliance decisions specific to your business.