Oregon PFAS Food Packaging Ban (SB 543): What Food Businesses Need to Know

Oregon SB 543: An Overview

Oregon joined the growing list of states restricting PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in food packaging with the passage of Senate Bill 543 in 2023. What makes Oregon's law stand out is its scope: rather than targeting only plant fiber-based packaging like California and Washington, SB 543 applies to all foodware containers — regardless of the material they are made from.

The ban took effect on January 1, 2025, meaning that manufacturers and distributors selling food packaging in Oregon must ensure their products do not contain intentionally added PFAS. For food businesses operating in Oregon — restaurants, food trucks, caterers, and packaged food brands — understanding SB 543 is essential for maintaining supply chain compliance and avoiding disruptions.

This guide explains what SB 543 requires, who bears responsibility for compliance, what packaging is affected, and what practical steps your business can take. For a broader overview of PFAS regulations across all states, see our complete guide to PFAS food packaging bans.

Regulation Details

What Packaging Is Covered

SB 543 defines "foodware" broadly to include any package, container, or serviceware that is designed for direct food contact and used for serving, storing, or transporting prepared food. This is a broader definition than many other state laws, which focus exclusively on plant fiber-based materials.

Under Oregon's ban, the following packaging types are covered:

• Molded fiber plates, bowls, and clamshells
• Paper bags, wraps, liners, and sleeves
• Pizza boxes and food trays
• Plastic takeout containers designed for direct food contact
• Foam containers and cups
• Paper and fiber-based cups
• Any other container designed for direct food contact in food service

All Materials, Not Just Plant Fiber

This is an important distinction from states like California and Washington, where PFAS bans are limited to plant fiber-based packaging. In Oregon, even plastic or foam containers that contain intentionally added PFAS fall within the scope of SB 543. While PFAS contamination is most commonly associated with plant fiber packaging — where the chemicals are used to create grease- and moisture-resistant coatings — the broader scope of Oregon's law means food businesses should evaluate all of their food-contact packaging, not just their compostable or paper-based items.

The law does not cover non-food-contact packaging. Shipping boxes, outer wrapping used for transport, and packaging that does not directly touch food are outside the scope of SB 543. However, any packaging that is designed to come into direct contact with prepared food falls under the ban.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Violations of SB 543 carry civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. Enforcement is handled by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which has authority to inspect, investigate, and issue penalties to manufacturers and distributors found selling non-compliant foodware in the state.

While Oregon's per-violation penalty of $5,000 is in line with several other states, it is worth noting that each instance of selling or distributing non-compliant packaging can constitute a separate violation. For manufacturers or distributors with large product volumes moving through Oregon, the cumulative financial exposure can be substantial.

The table below compares Oregon's penalty structure with several other states that have enacted PFAS food packaging restrictions:

Oregon does not include criminal penalties in its PFAS food packaging law, which distinguishes it from states like Connecticut where criminal liability of up to $50,000 can apply. However, the civil penalty structure is sufficient to create meaningful financial risk for non-compliant businesses in the supply chain.

Who Is Liable

Under SB 543, manufacturers and distributors of food packaging bear primary liability for compliance. This means the companies that produce foodware containers and the businesses that sell or distribute them into Oregon are responsible for ensuring those products do not contain intentionally added PFAS.

This manufacturer-and-distributor liability model is the most common approach among US states. Oregon follows the same pattern as California, Washington, Colorado, and most other states with PFAS food packaging bans. Minnesota remains the notable exception, where food service end users (restaurants) are directly liable.

Exemptions

SB 543 includes two key exemptions that narrow the scope of the ban:

• Non-intentional contamination. Packaging where PFAS is present as a contaminant — not intentionally added during manufacturing — is exempt from the ban. This accounts for the reality that trace levels of PFAS can appear in products through environmental contamination, recycled content, or cross-contamination in manufacturing facilities, even when no PFAS was deliberately used in production.
• Raw agricultural commodity packaging. Packaging used for raw agricultural commodities where feasible alternatives are unavailable may be exempt. This exemption recognizes that certain specialty agricultural applications may not yet have commercially viable PFAS-free alternatives. However, this exemption is narrow and does not apply to standard food service packaging.

It is worth noting that SB 543 does not define a specific numeric threshold (such as 100 ppm TOF) for what constitutes "intentionally added." In the absence of a defined threshold, Oregon DEQ has discretion in evaluating whether PFAS in a given product was intentionally added or is the result of incidental contamination. Food businesses and their suppliers should maintain testing documentation that can demonstrate their products are free of intentionally added PFAS.

Enforcement by Oregon DEQ

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is the designated enforcement authority for SB 543. DEQ has the authority to investigate complaints, request product testing documentation from manufacturers and distributors, and issue civil penalties for violations.

Oregon DEQ has historically taken an education-first approach to new environmental regulations, but the agency also has a track record of escalating enforcement when voluntary compliance is insufficient. Food packaging manufacturers and distributors selling into Oregon should expect that DEQ may request compliance documentation, particularly if complaints are filed by consumers, competitors, or advocacy organizations.

Steps to Compliance

The following steps can help food businesses and their supply chain partners verify and document compliance with Oregon's SB 543:

1. Audit all food-contact packaging. Because SB 543 covers all foodware containers — not just plant fiber — you need to evaluate every type of packaging that comes into direct contact with food. This includes paper, fiber, plastic, and foam items used for serving, takeout, and food storage.
2. Request compliance documentation from suppliers. Ask each supplier for a Certificate of Analysis (COA) or Certificate of Compliance confirming that their products do not contain intentionally added PFAS. Suppliers should be able to provide test data from a recognized laboratory.
3. Verify supplier claims with independent data. Generic "PFAS-free" marketing claims are not the same as verified test results. Look for COAs that reference specific test methods (such as EPA Method 533 or total organic fluorine screening) and include quantitative results.
4. Maintain organized records. Keep a file of all supplier COAs, compliance certificates, and correspondence related to PFAS compliance. This documentation can be valuable if DEQ requests evidence of compliance or if supply chain questions arise.
5. Evaluate alternative suppliers if needed. If any of your current suppliers cannot provide adequate compliance documentation, consider sourcing from suppliers who offer verified PFAS-free products. Our supplier directory lists packaging suppliers with documented PFAS compliance.
6. Monitor regulatory developments. PFAS regulation continues to expand at both the state and federal level. Oregon may update or strengthen its requirements over time, and businesses operating in multiple states need to track the evolving patchwork of regulations. Staying ahead of changes avoids last-minute scrambles.