North Carolina PFAS Bills (H 881 / H 882): What Food Businesses Should Know

Two Approaches to PFAS Regulation in North Carolina

North Carolina is considering two separate bills that would restrict PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in the state. House Bill 881, known as the PFAS Free NC Act, proposes a broad ban on PFAS across a range of consumer products. House Bill 882 takes a different approach, targeting PFAS in packaging materials through an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework.

Both bills were introduced during the 2025–2026 legislative session. As of this writing, neither bill has been enacted into law. They remain in the early stages of the legislative process, and their final form — if they advance — could change significantly.

For a comprehensive overview of enacted and proposed PFAS food packaging regulations across the country, see our complete guide to PFAS food packaging bans in 2026.

Regulation Details

Comparing the Two Bills

Although both H 881 and H 882 address PFAS, they differ substantially in scope, mechanism, and the types of businesses they would affect. Understanding these differences is important for food businesses trying to assess their potential exposure.

H 881: PFAS Free NC Act

H 881 is a broad prohibition on PFAS in consumer products. It would ban the sale, manufacture, and distribution of products containing intentionally added PFAS, including but not limited to food packaging. The bill also covers cookware, textiles, and other product categories where PFAS are commonly used for water and grease resistance.

For food businesses, H 881 would mean that food-contact packaging containing intentionally added PFAS could no longer be sold or used in North Carolina. This is similar in structure to the broad PFAS bans enacted in states like Minnesota and Washington, which cover all food packaging rather than limiting restrictions to specific material types.

H 882: Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging

H 882 takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than imposing a direct ban, it would establish an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program specifically for packaging materials. Under this model, producers and brand owners who introduce packaging into the North Carolina market would bear financial and operational responsibility for reducing the use of harmful substances — including PFAS — in their packaging.

The EPR approach would likely require producers to fund programs aimed at eliminating PFAS from packaging, report on the PFAS content of their packaging materials, and transition to safer alternatives over a defined timeline. This model places the primary compliance burden on packaging manufacturers and brand owners rather than on downstream food service businesses.

What Would Be Covered

If enacted, the scope of these bills would affect different segments of the food packaging supply chain:

• H 881 would cover food packaging broadly, including paper and molded fiber containers, wraps, bags, plates, bowls, cups, and other food-contact materials containing intentionally added PFAS. It would also extend to non-packaging products such as cookware and textiles.
• H 882 would specifically target packaging materials introduced into the North Carolina market. Food packaging would fall within its scope, but the compliance mechanism — producer responsibility programs rather than outright bans — differs from the approach taken in H 881.

Common food packaging items that could be affected by either bill include:

• Molded fiber clamshells and takeout containers
• Paper plates, bowls, and food boats
• Grease-resistant paper wraps and liners
• Paper bags (especially those with grease barriers)
• Pizza boxes
• Paper cups and lids
• Microwave popcorn bags and similar specialty packaging

Understanding the Extended Producer Responsibility Approach

Extended producer responsibility is a policy framework in which producers — the companies that manufacture, import, or sell packaged goods — assume responsibility for the environmental and health impacts of their packaging throughout its lifecycle. EPR programs have been adopted for electronics recycling and beverage container deposits in various jurisdictions, and several states are now exploring EPR for packaging more broadly.

In the context of H 882, EPR would mean that packaging producers would be required to:

• Register and report on the types and quantities of packaging they introduce into North Carolina, including disclosure of PFAS content
• Fund transition programs to support the development and adoption of PFAS-free packaging alternatives
• Meet reduction targets for PFAS in packaging over a specified timeline
• Participate in a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that coordinates industry-wide compliance efforts

For food businesses, an EPR model could mean that the cost of transitioning to PFAS-free packaging would be borne primarily by upstream producers rather than by individual restaurants, food trucks, or caterers. However, those costs could eventually flow downstream through higher packaging prices.

Current Legislative Status

As of February 2026, both H 881 and H 882 have been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly for the 2025–2026 session. Neither bill has advanced to a committee vote, floor vote, or gubernatorial signature. It is possible that one or both bills could be amended, combined with other legislation, referred to committee for further study, or allowed to expire without action.

North Carolina has historically been slower to adopt PFAS product restrictions compared to states in the Northeast and West Coast, though the state has significant experience with PFAS contamination issues — notably the GenX contamination of the Cape Fear River near Fayetteville. This history of environmental PFAS exposure may provide political momentum for legislative action, but the outcome remains uncertain.

What This Would Mean for North Carolina Food Businesses

If either bill were to become law, food businesses operating in North Carolina would need to evaluate their packaging for PFAS content. The specific compliance obligations would depend on which bill (or what combination of provisions) is ultimately enacted:

• Under H 881 (direct ban): Businesses would need to ensure that all food-contact packaging they purchase and use is free of intentionally added PFAS. This would require requesting documentation from suppliers and potentially switching to verified PFAS-free alternatives.
• Under H 882 (EPR): The primary compliance burden would fall on packaging producers, but food businesses could still be affected indirectly through changes in packaging availability, cost increases, or reporting requirements for businesses above certain thresholds.

North Carolina's food service industry is substantial, encompassing restaurants, food trucks, catering operations, and packaged food brands across the state. Businesses that rely heavily on disposable food packaging — particularly takeout-focused operations — would have the most at stake if these bills advance.

How to Prepare

Although there is no current legal requirement to eliminate PFAS from food packaging in North Carolina, food businesses may benefit from taking proactive steps now. Early preparation can reduce disruption if legislation is enacted and can also position your business favorably with increasingly PFAS-aware consumers.

1. Inventory your current packaging. Identify all food-contact packaging your business uses, noting the material type and supplier for each item. Pay particular attention to paper and molded fiber products, which are the most likely to contain PFAS-based grease-resistance treatments.
2. Request PFAS documentation from suppliers. Ask your packaging suppliers whether their products contain intentionally added PFAS. Request Certificates of Analysis (COAs) or written certifications of PFAS-free status. Suppliers who cannot provide this information may warrant closer scrutiny.
3. Identify PFAS-free alternatives. Research alternative packaging options that are verified PFAS-free. Many suppliers now offer grease-resistant food packaging made without PFAS, using alternative coatings or inherently grease-resistant materials.
4. Monitor legislative developments. Follow the progress of H 881 and H 882 through the North Carolina General Assembly. Understanding the timeline and specific requirements of any enacted legislation will help you plan your transition.
5. Consider multi-state compliance. If your business operates across state lines or sources packaging from national distributors, it may be more efficient to adopt PFAS-free packaging across all locations rather than maintaining different packaging inventories for different states.

For guidance on evaluating packaging for PFAS, see our guide to checking your packaging for PFAS. For information on the cost implications of switching to PFAS-free alternatives, see our PFAS-free packaging cost guide.