THE ECOLOGICAL TRANSITION OF PACKAGING: ELIMINATING PFAS TO PROTECT HEALTH AND THE CLIMATE
The persistence of PFAS between food safety and climate crisis: towards the EU ban in 2026 and the transition to low-impact bio-based materials.
PFAS, an acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, is a large and diverse group of man-made chemical compounds.
These substances are widely used in various industrial sectors: for example, they are used in technical clothing fabrics, found in pan coatings, in some cosmetic formulations, in fire-fighting foams and even in the most common food packaging, especially paper packaging.
Their usefulness lies in the fact that they can give materials water-repellent, stain-resistant and non-stick properties. From a chemical point of view, PFAS consist of a chain of varying lengths of carbon atoms bonded to fluorine atoms. The carbon-fluorine bonds make the molecule extremely heat-stable and chemically inert.
In addition, most PFAS have an acidic functional group, which makes them similar to surfactants. Thanks to this unique structure, PFAS act as a “barrier” against water and oily substances.
A major environmental pollution problem
In Italy, PFAS gained notoriety about ten years ago, when the Veneto region was the scene of one of the world’s most serious cases of environmental pollution. The disaster was caused by the Miteni company in Trissino (VI), now closed, which for decades dumped its production waste into the local aquifers. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case: other striking examples of pollution have been recorded in Ohio, China, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.
Once released, PFAS move easily in the atmosphere and in water bodies, through which they can travel long distances, spreading into the soil and the biome.
PFAS contamination has also been found in natural areas far from production and use sites, such as Mount Everest and the Svalbard Islands. As they are very stable molecules, they are difficult to break down by chemical and microbial agents, so they tend to accumulate in the environment and in living organisms. Very high concentrations of PFAS have been recorded near production facilities, where aquatic and avian species are particularly exposed.
In Italy, for example, high levels of PFOA and the compound C6O4 have been detected in the eggs of some wild birds near the plant located in Spinetta Marengo (AL). The presence of PFAS has also been recorded in some species of fish living in the River Po, and PFOS has been found to be the predominant compound despite being subject to restrictions on use and production since 2009.
Even after industrial production has ceased, these substances can persist in the ecosystem for decades. Nevertheless, PFAS, which have been produced since the 1940s, continue to be used worldwide today.
PFAS also have an impact on the climate.
One aspect that has not yet been studied in depth is the environmental impact of the PFAS production process, particularly the release of volatile fluorinated molecules into the atmosphere.
These substances are used as raw materials or are generated as by-products of synthesis. Examples include trifluoromethane and dichlorofluoromethane, two residues from PTFE production. Trifluoromethane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 12,400 times greater than that of CO₂. According to estimates, in 2018, approximately 1,800 tonnes of this by-product were emitted from PTFE production alone. Dichlorofluoromethane, on the other hand, is a molecule that is harmful to the ozone layer.
It may seem paradoxical (and indeed it is), but while PFAS production leads to the emission of climate-changing greenhouse gases, these compounds are also used in applications that support the transition to a green economy. These include, for example, lithium batteries, solar panels and semiconductors. Unfortunately, there are currently no better alternatives available for these products.
Effects on human health
Awareness of the effects of PFAS exposure on humans came late, when contamination was already widespread. We now know that these substances have an affinity for proteins, including certain blood proteins, to which they bind and through which they spread throughout the body.
In humans, PFAS have been detected in various biological matrices, including blood, placenta, breast milk, umbilical cord, hair and seminal fluid.
Epidemiological studies conducted on exposed populations have revealed alterations in child development, infertility problems, thyroid dysfunction, an increased risk of cancer, immune system malfunctions and hypercholesterolaemia.
People introduce PFAS into their bodies mainly through what they drink and eat – mostly through contaminated water and animal-based foods. Another important risk factor is the release of these compounds from food packaging: we will focus on this aspect, and on regulatory measures to combat it, in the following paragraphs.
PFAS laws in Europe and Italy: focus on food use
The European Union is stepping up the fight against PFAS with measures aimed at limiting their use in sensitive applications such as food packaging, where these compounds provide water and grease resistance. To reduce the environmental and health risks we have discussed, key legislation will come into force in January 2026: the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR, EU 2025/40), which introduces a specific ban on PFAS in food contact materials from 12 August 2026.
According to Article 21 of the regulation, it will no longer be possible to place food packaging containing PFAS above certain thresholds on the EU market: 25 parts per billion (ppb) for any individual PFAS, 250 ppb for the sum of all PFAS and 50 parts per million (ppm) for other parameters. This affects products such as grease-resistant fast-food wrappers, paper cups, pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags and straws, including fluoropolymer processing aids, even if not intentionally added.
The ban is part of a broader strategy to protect public health and the environment, motivated by scientific evidence linking PFAS to persistent contamination in soil, water and the food chain. Already in force since 2020, the REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) has restricted specific PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS, but a proposal for a broader restriction – submitted in 2023 by Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden – aims to ban over 10,000 PFAS in all sectors, including food packaging. This restriction, expected to be finally approved by 2026-2027, would extend the current ban, with exemptions only for essential uses where no alternatives exist.
The situation in Italy
Italy is facing a serious PFAS contamination crisis, particularly concentrated in the Veneto region, where one of the most extensive water contaminations in Europe has emerged. The area between the provinces of Vicenza, Verona and Padua has been affected by groundwater pollution affecting over 300,000 people. The contamination has been attributed mainly to industrial discharges from fluorinated chemical production plants.
The Italian government has responded with specific measures: in 2020, stricter limits for PFAS in drinking water were introduced, anticipating European directives. The Veneto Region has implemented a health monitoring plan for the exposed population and has initiated water remediation and filtration measures. Epidemiological studies conducted by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) and local universities have documented correlations between PFAS exposure and increases in cholesterol, thyroid disorders and potential carcinogenic effects.
On the food packaging front, Italy will transpose the PPWR Regulation like all Member States, and several Italian food companies are already adopting PFAS-free solutions ahead of regulatory deadlines. The Ministry of Health has stepped up controls on materials in contact with food, in line with Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004.
In Europe, countries such as Denmark have already banned PFAS in food packaging since 2020, while Sweden and Germany are pushing for mandatory testing. In the United States, cited as a benchmark, states such as California and New York have introduced similar bans from 2023, also influencing EU policies.
European manufacturers and importers must now provide declarations of compliance under Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials in contact with food, with penalties for non-compliance that can run into millions in fines. As a report by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) points out, “the persistence of PFAS outweighs the benefits, making a group approach urgent to avoid their replacement with equally harmful variants”.
Can PFAS be replaced?
As restrictions tighten, the scientific community is accelerating the search for safe alternatives to PFAS in food packaging, focusing on bio-based and sustainable materials that maintain barrier properties without posing health risks.
A study published in Environmental Science & Technology in 2024 maps 68 PFAS detected in materials such as paper, plastic and coated metals, highlighting the need for category-specific management. The authors, including Drake W. Phelps and Lindsey V. Parkinson, propose strategies such as global restrictions and transitions to PFAS-free packaging, citing examples of companies such as McDonald’s and Chipotle that have eliminated PFAS from 2020-2023. The paper also highlights alternatives such as PFAS-free moulded fibres, already certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), and recommends the use of the “essential use” concept for targeted phase-outs.
An analysis published in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety explores bio-based substitutes for food coatings, including polysaccharides and proteins derived from natural sources, which offer similar resistance to oil and water as PFAS. The researchers propose innovations such as nanocellulose and chitin, tested in the laboratory for compostable packaging, reducing chemical migration by 90% compared to PFAS.
In the field of renewable resources, a study published in Resources, Conservation and Recycling compares PFAS with bio-based coatings for fibre-based products, such as food-grade paper. The authors calculate that, although PFAS cost only $0.00012 per square metre, bio-based alternatives (ranging from $0.015 to $0.98) are scalable and already adopted by large paper industries, with potential social savings considering the environmental costs of PFAS. The study emphasises transitions based on performance calibrated to specific uses, demonstrating that, for single-use products, the properties of PFAS are often oversized.
Another study in Current Opinion in Food Science discusses the migration of PFAS into food, pushing for alternatives such as natural polymers, but notes gaps in human exposure data, highlighting the need for toxicity testing for new materials.
On the industrial front, the FIDRA organisation has recognised Delipac for its Smart-Safe© PFAS-free and plastic-free cardboard, which is ISO certified for recyclability and compostability. By using it for ready meals and takeaway food, Delipac has demonstrated that alternatives to PFAS-containing products already exist. Scientific research and industrial innovations show that replacing PFAS in food packaging is not only necessary but already feasible: bio-based materials such as nanocellulose, polysaccharides and moulded fibres offer adequate barrier performance for many single-use applications, and there are already companies producing certified PFAS-free, plastic-free, recyclable and compostable solutions, which have been adopted by retailers focused on sustainability. With the PPWR ban in force since 12 August 2026 (Regulation (EU) 2025/40, Article 21), which prohibits PFAS above specific thresholds (25 ppb single, 250 ppb sum, 50 ppm total fluorine) in food contact materials, the transition is accelerating: scalable alternatives drastically reduce chemical migration and health/environmental risks, rendering fluorinated coatings obsolete – oversized and costly in social terms. Science has paved the way, now it is up to industry and the market to fully embrace it.
Article by Marta Abbà and Rossella De Poi, volunteers at Italian Climate Network.