Key takeaways:
- PFAS litigation risk is now influencing packaging decisions as much as regulation, pushing brands to think beyond minimum compliance.
- Near-zero fluorine is emerging as the safest long-term R&D strategy, but technical challenges remain for high-fat bakery and snack products.
- Eliminating PFAS from recycled materials is proving difficult, increasing pressure on brands to balance sustainability goals with legal exposure.
Across food categories, packaging decisions were once driven by cost and basic performance – keeping products fresh, intact and attractive on shelf. Yet the materials traditionally relied upon to deliver these benefits are now under growing scrutiny. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) regulation and intensifying litigation risk are reshaping how brands, retailers and shoppers view packaging.
PFAS have been widely used in packaging due to their resistance to water and grease. However, these synthetic compounds are highly persistent in the environment and can accumulate in the human body. Increasing evidence has linked PFAS exposure to a range of health risks, including immune disruption, developmental issues and certain cancers.
This isn’t new news. Brands have been navigating concerns over PFAS for years, but rising awareness of the risks to human health means companies must actively work to eliminate PFAS – not only to reduce legal exposure, but to retain a social license to operate.
Regulation tightens, litigation threats rise
“PFAS regulation is tightening globally, so brands must either switch away from banned PFAS or completely phase them out,” packaging expert Dr Ruby Chan, project researcher at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology’s School of Design, tells us.
“For global brands with a longer-term outlook, the practical implication is clear – design for the strictest market, not the most permissive one.”
That approach is becoming more critical as national regulations diverge. In July 2025, the Australian Government banned the manufacture, import, export and use of three widely used ‘legacy’ PFAS chemicals – PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS – as well as products containing them. These compounds were among the earliest and most heavily used PFAS in food packaging, valued for their exceptional resistance to grease, oil and moisture, particularly in paper- and fiber-based wraps, bags and boxes.
PFOS and PFOA were historically applied to create durable barrier coatings that prevent fats from soaking through packaging, while PFHxS was often introduced as a shorter-chain alternative when concerns about the others began to emerge. All three are now known to be highly persistent ‘forever chemicals’ that don’t break down in the environment and can accumulate in the human body over time, with links to immune system effects, developmental harm and certain cancers.
However, banning these substances doesn’t eliminate PFAS exposure entirely. With more than 14,000 PFAS compounds in existence – many with similar properties and toxicological concerns – regulators increasingly recognize that restricting individual chemicals can encourage substitution rather than true elimination. As a result, further bans are widely expected, with authorities in multiple regions signaling a shift toward class-based regulation that treats PFAS as a group rather than regulating them one compound at a time.
In the US, there’s no single federal law banning all PFAS in food packaging. Instead, the regulatory landscape is defined by a voluntary FDA phase-out introduced in 2024 – legislation that has since stalled – alongside a patchwork of strict state-level bans. There are also more than 15,000 pending PFAS-related lawsuits as of January 2026.
In Europe, the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) will introduce an EU-wide restriction on PFAS in food-contact packaging from August 2026. According to Dr Chan, this is already influencing multinational brands operating across multiple markets.
“The goal now isn’t just compliance with current regulations, but futureproofing against upcoming restrictions and mitigating broader litigation risks associated with the entire PFAS chemical class,” she says. “Litigation and regulatory precedents from the US and EU are beginning to shape expectations in other markets.”
The push to remove PFAS is also driving intense R&D activity, as these compounds are notoriously difficult to replace. In Australia, Dr Chan highlights the role of the Australian Institute of Packaging and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation in supporting the transition, working with members to identify and phase out PFAS in packaging.
“We saw early market movers BioPak and Detpak launching PFAS-free molded fiber food packaging as early as 2023,” she says. “This indicates R&D budgets have already been significantly diverted toward barrier innovation as companies look to mitigate both regulatory and litigation risk.”
In the EU, R&D efforts are increasingly focused on reducing total fluorine levels to near zero, rather than replacing one regulated PFAS with another that remains unregulated. According to Dr Chan, near-zero fluorine is emerging as the gold standard because it’s the only way to futureproof products against the proposed Universal PFAS Restriction currently moving through the REACH process.
“The legal risk is therefore shifting from compliance with specific chemical bans to broader litigation risk around trace contamination and brand reputation,” Dr Chan says.
At the same time, innovations in bio-based and renewable materials – including plant-derived polysaccharides, proteins and natural waxes – are gaining traction. But the transition raises questions about unintended consequences, such as packaging failure or increased food waste.
Where PFAS-free packaging still falls short
According to Dr Chan, the longer food remains in packaging, the greater the technical challenge. “Many alternatives struggle with wicking, where oils migrate through paper fibers over time,” she explains. “We also see technical gaps in crease integrity. While a coating may work on a flat surface, it can crack when folded into a bag or box, compromising the barrier.
“For high-fat bakery or snack products, these failures don’t just affect aesthetics – they lead to faster oxidation and staleness, directly increasing the risk of food waste.”
Another unresolved issue is the availability of PFAS-free recycled materials. Although many PFAS chemicals are being phased out or banned, they continue to appear as legacy contaminants due to widespread historical use.
“PFAS used in past products don’t break down,” Dr Chan notes, “and can accumulate in recycled materials such as plastic and paper during the recycling process.”
The industry may be moving toward cleaner, greener packaging materials, but the transition remains complex. With PFAS regulation expected to stay active and unpredictable, this is a year in which bakery and snack brands will need to remain agile, well-informed and prepared for both regulatory and legal scrutiny.
