News, Regulations, Materials & Market Intelligence
Topic coverage
PFAS coverage here focuses on what ‘PFAS-free’ claims actually mean for food-contact fiber packaging and how buyers can evaluate them. Articles distinguish intentionally added PFAS from targeted testing and fluorine screening, and outline how EU and U.S. food-contact rules treat these substances differently. Practical coverage includes barrier-system alternatives to fluorinated grease-proofing, such as aqueous dispersions, starch, nanocellulose, waxes, sizing agents and biodegradable polymer layers, compared by the specific grease, water, heat and forming demands they must meet. Bagasse molded-fiber packaging is examined to show why feedstock names do not establish PFAS status, compostability or food-contact compliance; the finished construction and supporting evidence do.
Packaging procurement is moving from broad claims to auditable evidence. Buyers are asking harder questions about PFAS, recycled content, certification scope, local recyclability, supplier data, MOQ and total cost.
PFAS replacement is not one coating chemistry. Compare aqueous dispersions, starch, nanocellulose, PVA, sizing agents, shellac, biodegradable polyesters and hybrid systems by the barrier job they actually need to perform.
PFAS-free is not one universal packaging definition. This guide separates intentionally added PFAS, targeted testing, fluorine screening and current EU/U.S. food-contact rules.
Bagasse is sugarcane-derived fiber used in molded food packaging, but the finished item—not the feedstock name—determines barrier performance, compostability, PFAS status and recovery.
