Washington State PFAS Food Packaging Ban: Phased Rollout Explained

Washington State's PFAS Food Packaging Ban: An Overview

Washington was one of the first states in the nation to legislate PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) restrictions in food packaging. The original legislation, House Bill 2658, was signed into law in 2018 — years before most other states began addressing PFAS in food packaging. Subsequent legislation, including SB 5135 in 2023, expanded and refined the ban.

What makes Washington's approach distinctive is its phased rollout. Rather than implementing a single effective date, Washington divided its ban into two phases, giving different segments of the packaging industry different compliance timelines. Phase 1 took effect on February 1, 2023, covering paper-based food wraps, liners, bags, and sleeves. Phase 2 expanded coverage to all plant-fiber food packaging on February 1, 2025.

This guide covers Washington's phased approach, what packaging is affected at each stage, who bears responsibility for compliance, and practical steps for food businesses. For a broader overview of PFAS regulations across all US states, see our complete guide to PFAS food packaging bans.

Regulation Details

What Packaging Is Covered

Washington's PFAS food packaging ban applies to plant fiber-based food packaging, but the specific items covered depend on which phase of the rollout applies. Both phases are now in effect, meaning the full scope of the law is currently enforceable.

Phase 1: Paper-Based Food Wraps (February 2023)

The first phase, effective February 1, 2023, targeted the packaging types most commonly associated with PFAS treatment for grease resistance:

• Paper food wraps and sandwich wraps
• Paper liners (basket liners, tray liners, sheet liners)
• Paper bags used for food (bakery bags, french fry bags, etc.)
• Paper sleeves (cup sleeves, burrito sleeves, etc.)

These items were prioritized because paper-based wraps and liners are among the most frequently treated with PFAS-based coatings. The grease resistance that PFAS provides is particularly valued in these thin, flat packaging formats that are in direct contact with greasy or moist foods. Phase 1 addressed the highest-risk product categories first.

Phase 2: All Plant-Fiber Food Packaging (February 2025)

The second phase, effective February 1, 2025, extended coverage to all remaining plant fiber-based food packaging:

• Molded fiber plates and bowls
• Clamshell takeout containers
• Pizza boxes (when made from plant-fiber materials)
• Paper and fiber cups
• Food trays and boats
• Any other plant fiber-based food-contact packaging

With both phases now in effect, Washington's ban covers the full range of plant fiber-based food packaging. However, unlike states such as Connecticut, Oregon, and Minnesota, Washington's ban does not extend to non-plant-fiber packaging. Plastic containers, foam packaging, and metal food-contact items fall outside the scope of this law.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Violations of Washington's PFAS food packaging ban carry civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation per day. The "per day" provision is significant — it means that each day of continued non-compliance constitutes a separate violation, and penalties accumulate accordingly. A manufacturer distributing non-compliant packaging over an extended period could face substantial cumulative fines.

Enforcement is handled by the Washington Department of Ecology, which has authority to investigate complaints, request product documentation, and issue penalties. The Department of Ecology has an established track record of enforcing environmental regulations and has the resources and institutional capacity to pursue violations.

The following table compares Washington's penalty structure with other states that have enacted PFAS food packaging restrictions:

Washington does not include criminal penalties in its PFAS food packaging law. Enforcement is limited to civil penalties and administrative actions. However, the per-day penalty structure means that the financial exposure for persistent non-compliance can exceed that of states with higher per-violation caps but no daily accumulation provision.

Who Is Liable

Washington's law places primary liability on manufacturers and distributors of plant fiber-based food packaging. These are the companies that produce packaging products and sell or distribute them into the Washington market.

While restaurants are not directly liable, the practical reality is that enforcement actions against packaging suppliers can create downstream supply chain disruptions. Food businesses that proactively verify their suppliers' compliance are better positioned to avoid the operational challenges that come with sudden supplier changes.

Exemptions

Washington's PFAS food packaging law includes the following exemptions:

• No feasible alternative. Packaging where no feasible PFAS-free alternative exists may be exempt, but the manufacturer must petition the Washington Department of Ecology for a determination. This exemption is not self-executing — it requires an affirmative finding from the agency that no practical alternative is available.
• Non-plant-fiber packaging. As noted above, packaging made from materials other than plant fiber (plastic, foam, metal, etc.) is outside the scope of the law entirely. This is not technically an exemption but rather a limitation of the law's coverage.

The "no feasible alternative" exemption has become increasingly narrow as the market for PFAS-free food packaging has matured. When Washington first enacted HB 2658 in 2018, the range of commercially available PFAS-free alternatives was limited. Today, multiple suppliers offer PFAS-free versions of virtually every common food packaging format. As a result, successfully petitioning for this exemption is increasingly difficult.

Washington as a Pioneer in PFAS Legislation

Washington's 2018 legislation (HB 2658) was among the earliest state-level actions on PFAS in food packaging in the United States. At the time, PFAS contamination in food packaging was a relatively niche regulatory concern, and only a handful of states were considering legislation. Washington's early action helped set the template that other states would follow.

Several aspects of Washington's approach have been influential:

• The phased approach. Washington's two-phase rollout provided a model for implementing PFAS bans gradually, starting with the highest-risk product categories and expanding over time. This approach gives industry time to develop and scale alternatives while still making progress on reducing PFAS exposure.
• Department of Ecology enforcement. By assigning enforcement to an established environmental agency rather than creating new regulatory infrastructure, Washington demonstrated that PFAS food packaging enforcement could be integrated into existing regulatory frameworks.
• The feasibility-based exemption. The requirement that manufacturers petition for exemptions based on the lack of feasible alternatives influenced how other states structured their own exemption provisions.

As the PFAS regulatory landscape has evolved, Washington's plant-fiber-only scope is now narrower than many newer state laws. States like Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, and Illinois have adopted broader bans covering all food packaging materials. Nevertheless, Washington's pioneering legislation remains an important reference point in the national PFAS conversation.

Steps to Compliance

The following steps can help food businesses and packaging suppliers verify and document compliance with Washington's PFAS food packaging ban:

1. Identify all plant fiber-based food packaging. Conduct an inventory of every food-contact packaging item your business uses or distributes. Separate plant fiber-based items (molded fiber, paper, bagasse, bamboo, wheat straw) from non-plant-fiber items (plastic, foam, foil, metal). Washington's ban applies only to the former.
2. Understand the phase timeline. Both Phase 1 (paper wraps, liners, bags, sleeves) and Phase 2 (all plant-fiber packaging) are now in effect. All plant fiber-based food packaging sold or distributed in Washington must be compliant. There is no remaining grace period.
3. Request compliance documentation from suppliers. Ask each supplier of plant fiber-based food packaging for a current Certificate of Analysis (COA) or Certificate of Compliance confirming that their products do not contain intentionally added PFAS. Reputable suppliers should have this documentation readily available.
4. Verify supplier claims beyond marketing language. Look for COAs that reference specific test methods and include quantitative results. Generic claims of "PFAS-free" or "eco-friendly" without supporting test data are insufficient for compliance verification.
5. Maintain compliance records. Keep organized files of all supplier COAs, compliance certificates, and correspondence related to PFAS compliance. The Washington Department of Ecology may request this documentation during an investigation, and having it readily available demonstrates due diligence.
6. Plan for multi-state compliance. If your business operates in Washington and other states, be aware that the scope of PFAS bans varies. Washington covers only plant fiber packaging, while states like Oregon and Connecticut cover all food packaging. Consider adopting the strictest applicable standard across your operations to simplify compliance. Our supplier directory lists packaging suppliers with documented PFAS compliance across multiple jurisdictions.