If your product ships in paper, paperboard, or molded-fiber packaging that has to resist grease or moisture, there is a regulatory change worth your attention right now. On May 25, 2026, Maine began prohibiting the sale of plant-fiber food-contact packaging that contains intentionally added PFAS. It is one of at least a dozen states that now restrict these chemicals in food packaging, and the coating that has quietly made fiber packaging grease-proof for decades is exactly what these laws target. For many brands, the uncomfortable question is simple: do you actually know whether your fiber packaging contains PFAS?
This is not a distant or theoretical issue. It is a materials-sourcing decision that affects any brand selling greasy, oily, or moist food in fiber packaging, and the compliance map is only getting more complex. Here is what changed, why it reaches packaging most brands assumed was already clean, and what the compliant alternatives actually are.
What PFAS Is Doing in Your Packaging
PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of synthetic chemicals valued for one reason: they resist grease, oil, and water at the same time, while staying thin and flexible enough to run on packaging lines. That combination made them the default barrier chemistry for fiber food packaging. If a paper wrapper, a molded-pulp bowl, a takeout clamshell, or a folding carton holds something oily without soaking through, a fluorochemical coating has often been the reason.
The problem is that what makes them useful also makes them persistent. PFAS do not readily break down in the environment or the body, which is why they are widely called forever chemicals, and why regulators have moved to eliminate them from food-contact uses. The result is that a feature brands never thought about, grease resistance, has become a compliance liability sitting inside packaging they may have chosen specifically because it felt like the sustainable option.
What Actually Changed, and Where
The regulatory picture has several layers, and it helps to separate them.
- Maine, effective May 25, 2026. A manufacturer, supplier, or distributor may no longer offer for sale in Maine food packaging intended for direct food contact that is made in substantial part from paper, paperboard, or other plant-fiber materials and is intended for short-term storage or to hold freshly prepared food, if PFAS were intentionally introduced in any amount above an incidental presence. The rule covers formats like bags, sleeves, containers, food boats, wraps, liners, and pizza boxes. Maine also began requiring PFAS notification to its Department of Environmental Protection as of January 1, 2026, and has a broader product-level phase-out on the horizon for 2032.
- At least a dozen states in total. Maine is not alone, and it was not first. At least twelve states now restrict intentionally added PFAS in food packaging, with the earliest, including Washington, California, and New York, having moved years ago, and others such as Colorado, Oregon, and Rhode Island phasing in through 2024 and 2025. The specific scope varies: some cover all food packaging and foodware, others focus on paper and fiber formats. (For the fuller state-by-state picture, see our overview of how the PFAS packaging map is changing.)
- The federal backdrop. Since early 2024, and reaffirmed in early 2025, US manufacturers stopped selling PFAS-based grease-proofing agents for paper and paperboard food packaging, a change confirmed by the FDA. That was a voluntary market exit rather than a ban, and it removed a major source of dietary PFAS, but it does not mean every fiber package in circulation is clean, particularly imported packaging or older inventory.
The practical takeaway from the patchwork is not to memorize each state. It is that the direction is one way, the scope keeps widening, and a brand selling in multiple states cannot safely assume a fiber package that is legal today in one place is legal everywhere, or will stay that way.
If your packaging distributor ships nationally, trying to track which specific item is legal in which state is a losing game. The more defensible position, and the one most brands are moving toward, is to require verified PFAS-free packaging across the board, so a single compliant specification covers every market you sell into. It is simpler to manage and it does not expire the next time a state legislature acts.
Why This Is Harder Than Swapping a Material
The instinct is to treat this as a simple substitution: take the PFAS out, put something else in. In practice, PFAS solved grease resistance, moisture resistance, and processability all at once, and replacing it means hitting the same three targets without the one chemistry that did all three. A few things make that genuinely an engineering problem rather than a purchasing swap:
- Grease and moisture are different jobs. A coating that stops oil migration does not automatically stop moisture, and some alternatives are strong on one and weak on the other. The right choice depends on what the specific product actually does to the package.
- Flat-sheet tests can mislead. A material may pass a grease-resistance test as a flat sheet and then fail where it is folded, scored, or creased into a container, which is exactly where real packaging is stressed. Performance has to be judged on the formed package, not the raw sheet.
- End-of-life drives the chemistry. Whether a brand wants the final package to be recyclable or compostable should be decided first, because it narrows the coating options before performance is even discussed. A recyclable target and a compostable target point toward different families of PFAS-free coatings with different performance ceilings.
This is the part most brands underestimate. Removing PFAS is not a like-for-like swap; it is a barrier-engineering decision that has to balance performance, the product, and the intended end-of-life pathway together.
What the Compliant Alternatives Look Like
The good news is that the market has moved, and there are real, commercially available PFAS-free options. They fall into a few broad approaches:
- Uncoated and mechanically treated fiber. Some paper and paperboard can be made grease-resistant through mechanical densification rather than a chemical coating, avoiding the barrier-additive question altogether for the right applications.
- Naturally oil-resistant fibers. Molded fiber made from feedstocks such as bagasse (a sugarcane byproduct) or wheat straw carries more inherent oil resistance than standard wood pulp, which reduces how much barrier a coating has to add.
- Water-based and bio-based barrier coatings. A growing set of fluorine-free coatings, including water-based dispersion and latex-based systems, deliver grease and moisture resistance without PFAS. Latex-based coatings in particular open a capable design space when the target is a recyclable package.
Which of these is right is not a catalog decision. It depends on the product, the format, the barrier level actually required, and the recyclability or compostability goal. Choosing well is where a materials and engineering approach earns its place, and choosing poorly means either a package that fails in the field or one that over-specifies and costs more than it needs to.
How Korpack Helps
Korpack is an engineering-led packaging company, and PFAS compliance in fiber packaging is squarely a materials-selection problem, which is exactly what that engineering focus is for.
Practically, that means helping a brand identify where PFAS may be present in its current fiber packaging, sourcing verified PFAS-free paper, paperboard, molded fiber, and coated alternatives, and matching the barrier approach to the product and the intended end-of-life so the replacement holds up in the field rather than just on a spec sheet. Because Korpack works across materials rather than a single product line, the recommendation can follow the requirement, whether that is an uncoated fiber, a naturally oil-resistant molded format, or a water-based barrier coating, rather than being limited to whatever one supplier happens to make.
Korpack supplies the materials and performs secondary packaging such as labeling, cartoning, and pack-outs; the compliance goal is a fiber package that meets the grease and moisture demands of the product and the PFAS rules of every state it ships into.
A grease-resistant fiber package used to be a quiet win. In 2026, it is a specification worth verifying before a state, or a retailer, does it for you.
Korpack helps food and beverage brands identify PFAS exposure in their current packaging and source verified PFAS-free fiber and coated alternatives that still deliver the grease and moisture protection the product needs. Let’s review your packaging.
855.567.7225 | korpack.com
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Maine PFAS food packaging ban that took effect in 2026?
Effective May 25, 2026, Maine prohibits selling or distributing food packaging intended for direct food contact that is made substantially from paper, paperboard, or other plant fibers and is meant for short-term storage or freshly prepared food, if PFAS were intentionally added above an incidental presence. It covers formats such as bags, sleeves, containers, food boats, wraps, liners, and pizza boxes. Maine also began requiring PFAS notification to its Department of Environmental Protection as of January 1, 2026.
How many states restrict PFAS in food packaging?
At least a dozen US states now restrict intentionally added PFAS in food packaging. The earliest movers included Washington, California, and New York, with states such as Colorado, Oregon, and Rhode Island phasing in through 2024 and 2025, and Maine’s plant-fiber rule taking effect in 2026. The exact scope differs by state, so a brand selling nationally generally cannot assume one package is compliant everywhere.
Does my fiber packaging definitely contain PFAS?
Not necessarily, but it is worth verifying rather than assuming. PFAS has historically been used as a grease- and moisture-resistant coating on paper and fiber food packaging, so grease-resistant items are the ones to check first. US manufacturers stopped selling PFAS grease-proofing agents for paper packaging in 2024, but imported packaging and older inventory may still contain them. The reliable approach is to confirm PFAS-free status with your supplier for each grease-resistant item, not to assume.
What can replace PFAS coatings without losing grease resistance?
Several PFAS-free approaches are commercially available: paper and paperboard made grease-resistant through mechanical densification, molded fiber from naturally oil-resistant feedstocks like bagasse or wheat straw, and water-based or bio-based barrier coatings including latex-based systems. The right choice depends on the product, the format, the barrier level required, and whether the goal is a recyclable or compostable package, so the end-of-life target should be decided before the coating is chosen.
- Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Toxics in Food Packaging Program, and legal analyses (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Pierce Atwood). Source for the May 25, 2026 effective date of Maine’s prohibition on intentionally added PFAS in plant-fiber direct-food-contact packaging intended for short-term storage or freshly prepared food, the covered formats, the January 1, 2026 notification requirement, the exemption for manufacturers with national food and beverage sales below $1 billion, and the broader 2032 product phase-out.
- Packaging Dive and Manufacturing Dive coverage of 2026 state packaging and PFAS laws. Source for the description of Maine’s covered plant-fiber formats and the broader landscape of state PFAS-in-packaging laws taking effect in 2026.
- State-by-state PFAS packaging analyses and foodservice compliance guides, 2025-2026. Source for at least a dozen states restricting intentionally added PFAS in food packaging, the early-mover states (Washington, California, New York) and later phase-ins (Colorado, Oregon, Rhode Island), the variation in scope between states, and the FDA-confirmed 2024 market exit (reaffirmed 2025) of PFAS grease-proofing agents for paper and paperboard food packaging.
- PFAS-free barrier and coating references, 2025-2026 (including Kemira, Clean Production Action, and grease-resistant coating technical analyses). Source for PFAS delivering grease resistance, moisture resistance, and processability together, the alternatives (mechanically densified uncoated fiber, naturally oil-resistant molded fiber from bagasse or wheat straw, water-based and latex-based coatings), the difference between grease and moisture barrier jobs, the limitation of flat-sheet grease testing versus formed-package performance, and the recyclable-versus-compostable end-of-life decision driving coating chemistry.
- Korpack Marketing Guidelines and Value Propositions, November 2023. Source for Korpack’s material selection, paperboard and paper packaging, molded pulp and protective packaging, barrier and poly films, packaging engineering, and secondary packaging. Korpack supplies materials and performs secondary packaging; it does not fill product and does not provide legal or regulatory compliance certification.
Korpack is a technologically advanced packaging materials, contract packaging, and automation supplier that approaches solutions with an engineering mindset and creative flexibility. Founded by a packaging engineer, Korpack serves growth-oriented food and beverage brands across North America from its Chicagoland headquarters. This article is provided for general information and is not legal advice; PFAS regulations vary by state and change frequently, so confirm current requirements for the states you sell into with a qualified advisor.
