The Complete Guide to PFAS Food Packaging Bans (2026)

If you operate a food business in the United States, Australia, or the European Union, there is a good chance that new regulations around per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food packaging already affect you — or will soon. As of early 2026, more than a dozen US states have enacted laws restricting or outright banning PFAS in food packaging, and international regulators are following suit.

This guide provides a plain-language overview of every major PFAS food-packaging regulation currently in effect or coming soon, what they mean for restaurants, food trucks, caterers, and packaged-food brands, and concrete steps many businesses are taking to stay compliant. It is not legal advice — always consult a qualified attorney for guidance specific to your situation.

What Are PFAS?

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of more than 14,000 synthetic chemicals often called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment. Their carbon-fluorine bonds are among the strongest in organic chemistry, which makes them exceptionally persistent in soil, water, and the human body.

Why Are PFAS in Food Packaging?

Food packaging manufacturers have used PFAS for decades because these chemicals provide excellent resistance to grease, oil, and moisture. Molded-fiber takeout containers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, fast-food wrappers, and even some paper cups have historically relied on PFAS-based coatings to prevent food from soaking through the material.

Health Concerns

A growing body of peer-reviewed research has linked PFAS exposure to serious health effects. Studies published by the National Academies of Sciences, the EPA, and international health bodies have identified associations with:

• Endocrine disruption — PFAS can interfere with thyroid hormone function, which regulates metabolism, growth, and development.
• Cancer — Several PFAS compounds, notably PFOA and PFOS, have been classified as possible or probable carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), with links to kidney and testicular cancer.
• Immune system effects — Research indicates reduced vaccine response and other immune suppression in individuals with elevated PFAS blood levels.
• Reproductive and developmental harm — Associations with low birth weight, preeclampsia, and fertility issues have been documented.

These health concerns are the primary driver behind the wave of legislation now sweeping the United States and beyond.

The Regulatory Landscape in 2026

Unlike many food-safety issues that are handled at the federal level, PFAS food-packaging regulation in the US has been driven almost entirely by individual states. The result is a patchwork of laws that vary significantly in scope, effective dates, enforcement mechanisms, and who bears liability.

As of February 2026, the landscape breaks down as follows:

States with Effective Bans (11 states)

The following states have PFAS food-packaging bans that are currently enforceable: New York, California, Washington, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Hawaii, Oregon, and Rhode Island. These laws carry real penalties — fines range from $2,500 to $25,000 per violation depending on the state, and Connecticut even imposes criminal penalties of up to $50,000.

Enacted but Upcoming (5 states)

Several additional states have signed PFAS food-packaging bans into law but have effective dates in the near future: Illinois (Jan 2026), Maine (May 2026), New Hampshire (Jan 2027), New Mexico (Jan 2027), and New Jersey (Jan 2028). Businesses in these states have a window to prepare, but that window is closing.

International Momentum

Beyond the US, both Australia (via FSANZ) and the European Union (via the PPWR) have enacted their own PFAS restrictions on food-contact materials. More on these below.

State-by-State Summary

Below is a closer look at the most significant state regulations. Each card links to a detailed breakdown for that state, including specific packaging types, exemptions, enforcement details, and practical compliance guidance.

California

California’s AB 1200 was one of the earliest state-level PFAS food-packaging laws and has been effective since January 2023. It targets plant-fiber-based packaging and sets a measurable threshold of 100 ppm total organic fluorine (TOF). California’s Proposition 65 listing for PFOA and PFOS adds another layer of potential exposure for businesses, since Prop 65 carries a private right of action that allows individuals to file enforcement lawsuits.

New York

New York’s S.8817 bans PFAS in plant-fiber food packaging and has been in effect since late 2022. While the scope is narrower than some newer laws — covering only plant-based materials — New York’s large market and active regulatory enforcement through the Department of Environmental Conservation make compliance essential for any business distributing food packaging in the state.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s PFAS ban is arguably the most important regulation for food service operators to understand. Unlike every other US state, Minnesota explicitly extends liability to the end users of food packaging — meaning restaurants, food trucks, and catering companies can be fined directly for using non-compliant packaging, even if their supplier told them it was safe.

Connecticut

Connecticut’s HB 6368 stands out for two reasons: it covers all food packaging materials (not just plant-fiber), and it includes both civil and criminal penalties. With fines up to $10,000 per civil violation and criminal penalties reaching $50,000, Connecticut has one of the strictest enforcement frameworks in the country. The law has been effective since January 2024.

Oregon

Oregon’s SB 543 prohibits PFAS in all “foodware containers” — defined as any package or container designed for direct food contact and used for serving or takeout. Effective since January 2025, the law covers all materials, not just plant fiber. Oregon DEQ enforces with civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation.

Washington

Washington State was a pioneer in PFAS food-packaging legislation, first enacting restrictions in 2018. The state uses a phased approach: Phase 1 (effective February 2023) covered paper food wraps and liners, while Phase 2 (effective February 2025) extended the ban to all plant-fiber food packaging. The Department of Ecology enforces with penalties up to $5,000 per violation per day.

Illinois

Illinois’s SB 2076 takes effect on January 1, 2026, and is notable for its exceptionally broad scope. Beyond banning PFAS in all food packaging, Illinois uniquely extends coverage to coatings, inks, and adhesives used on food packaging. This means that suppliers of printing and coating materials — not just the packaging itself — are also affected. The Illinois EPA enforces with penalties up to $5,000 per violation.

Other States with Bans

Several other states have effective or enacted PFAS food-packaging bans that food businesses in those markets need to be aware of:

• Vermont — One of the broadest US bans. Covers all food packaging plus food service gloves. A January 2026 expansion extends to all products with intentionally added PFAS. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation.
• Colorado — Effective January 2024. Covers plant-fiber food packaging. Penalties up to $5,000 per violation.
• Maryland — Effective January 2024. Covers plant-fiber food packaging and food service gloves. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation.
• Hawaii — Effective December 2024. Covers specified plant-fiber food packaging types. Penalties up to $2,500 per violation.
• Rhode Island — Effective January 2025. Covers all food packaging. Penalties up to $5,000 per violation.
• Maine — Phase 1 (plant-fiber packaging) effective May 2026. Phase 2 (2032) will be the broadest PFAS ban in the US, covering all products. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

Looking further ahead, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and New Jersey have all enacted PFAS food-packaging bans with effective dates in 2027–2028. Bills are also in various stages of the legislative process in Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Penalty Comparison

Penalties vary widely across states. The table below compares civil and criminal penalties, scope, and whether end users (restaurants, food trucks) face direct liability in key states.

As the table illustrates, Connecticut stands alone with criminal penalties for PFAS food-packaging violations, while Minnesota is the only state that holds restaurants and food service operators directly liable. Businesses operating across multiple states face a particularly complex compliance picture, as the strictest applicable law effectively sets the floor for their packaging standards.

International Regulations

Australia (FSANZ)

Australia’s food safety regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), has taken a compound-specific approach to PFAS in food-contact materials. Effective July 2025, FSANZ Standard 1.4.3 prohibits PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS at a maximum residue limit of 0.025 mg/kg (25 ppb). Notably, Australia’s framework — like Minnesota’s in the US — extends liability to food businesses (restaurants and food service operators), not just manufacturers. Penalties are substantial: up to AUD 1,110,000 in civil penalties for individuals and AUD 5,550,000 in criminal penalties, with body corporates facing five times those amounts.

The compound-specific approach means that other PFAS compounds beyond the listed three are not yet restricted, though additional compounds may be added in future updates to the standard.

European Union (PPWR)

The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), finalized in November 2024, introduces a sophisticated three-tier limit system for PFAS in food-contact packaging, effective August 2026:

• Tier 1 — 25 ppb limit for any individual PFAS compound.
• Tier 2 — 250 ppb limit for the sum of listed PFAS compounds.
• Tier 3 — 50 ppm limit for total organic fluorine (TOF).

This tiered system is more stringent than most US state laws. Even if a product passes the total fluorine test (Tier 3), it can still fail if any individual PFAS compound exceeds 25 ppb (Tier 1). Penalties are determined by individual EU member states, but the PPWR requires them to be “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.” Businesses exporting food packaging to the EU will want to plan for full three-tier testing.

Who’s Affected?

PFAS food-packaging bans touch every link in the food supply chain, though liability varies by state. The following types of businesses are most directly impacted:

• Restaurants and cafes — Particularly those using takeout containers, to-go cups, and food wraps. In most states, liability falls on the manufacturer and distributor, but in Minnesota, the restaurant itself is directly liable.
• Food trucks and mobile vendors — Heavily reliant on disposable food packaging for nearly all service, making them especially exposed to these regulations.
• Caterers and event food service — Large-volume disposable packaging users who may source from multiple suppliers across state lines.
• Packaged food brands — CPG companies whose products sit on shelves in regulated states, including brands using fiber-based trays, wraps, and bags.
• Packaging manufacturers — The primary targets of most state laws. Manufacturers bear responsibility for ensuring their products do not contain intentionally added PFAS.
• Distributors and wholesalers — Nearly all state laws explicitly include distributors in the chain of liability. Distributors of food packaging may want to verify supplier compliance documentation.

What Your Business Can Do

While every business’s situation is different, the following steps represent what many food businesses are doing to address PFAS compliance. These are general informational steps, not legal advice.

1. Audit Current Packaging

The first step many businesses take is cataloging every type of food packaging they currently use — takeout containers, cups, lids, wraps, bags, pizza boxes, trays, and even food-service gloves (which are covered in some states like Vermont and Maryland). For each item, it helps to note the material type (plant fiber, plastic, foil, etc.), the supplier, and whether there is any documentation about PFAS content.

2. Request Supplier Documentation

Many businesses are asking their packaging suppliers for written documentation — often a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) or Certificate of Analysis (CoA) — confirming that their products are free of intentionally added PFAS. Reputable suppliers are increasingly prepared to provide this documentation. If a supplier cannot or will not provide it, that may be a signal to explore alternatives.

3. Switch to PFAS-Free Alternatives

The market for PFAS-free food packaging has expanded significantly in recent years. PFAS-free alternatives now exist for virtually every common food-packaging category, including grease-resistant containers, cups, wraps, and bags. Many use alternative coatings such as aqueous coatings, PLA (polylactic acid), or wax-based treatments to achieve grease resistance without PFAS. The PFAS Packaging Check supplier directory includes vetted suppliers who provide PFAS-free products with documentation.

4. Stay Current on Regulations

The regulatory landscape is changing rapidly. New states are enacting bans, existing laws are expanding in scope, and enforcement is ramping up. What was compliant last year may not be compliant today. Many businesses find it valuable to use a compliance tracking tool to monitor changes that affect their specific states and packaging types.

Check Your Compliance

PFAS Packaging Check tracks every PFAS food-packaging regulation across the US, Australia, and the EU in one place. The free compliance checker lets you select your state and packaging types to get an instant compliance snapshot — no account required.