PPWR Article 5 — PFAS in food-contact packaging

PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are a family of ~10,000 synthetic chemicals prized in food packaging for their grease and water resistance (pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, fast-food wrappers). They are also persistent, bioaccumulative, and increasingly linked to adverse health outcomes. PPWR Article 5 closes the regulatory gap by setting a direct, low-threshold limit on PFAS in food-contact packaging.

The rule, in one sentence

What “food-contact packaging” covers

The Article 5 PFAS restriction applies to any packaging layer that is — or may become — in direct contact with food during normal or foreseeable use. This includes:

  • Inner layers of multilayer pouches (chocolate, snack, freeze-dried).
  • Greaseproof papers used for bakery, butter, and fast-food wrap.
  • Moulded fibre tableware (compostable bowls, plates).
  • Coatings on cardboard food trays and cups.
  • Inner films and bag linings in cereal, pet food and grain packaging.
  • Closures and seals on jars and bottles that touch the product head-space.

Outer layers and secondary packaging (transport boxes, pallets, shipping cartons) are out of scope unless the food is exposed to them in normal use — for example, bulk pet-food sacks that double as the consumer pack.

What 25 ppb means in practice

25 ppb is a very low bar — roughly the level historically used to distinguish “intentionally added” PFAS from background contamination from food, water, or recycled fibre. In practice, the threshold means:

  • Intentionally fluorinated packaging is out. Any product that uses fluorochemistry for grease resistance (Zonyl, Capstone, fluoroether oligomers) will exceed 25 ppb by 2–3 orders of magnitude.
  • Recycled fibre needs verification. Recycled cardboard can pick up trace PFAS from cosmetic, hygiene, or technical-paper streams. Recycled-content food packaging needs supplier certification of the recyclate feedstock.
  • PTFE-coated processing equipment. Some bakery and confectionery lines use PTFE belts; trace migration can push otherwise PFAS-free packaging over threshold. Cleaning and changeover protocols matter.

Are there exemptions?

Article 5(2)–(4) anticipates two narrow exemption channels:

ExemptionConditionsStatus as of 2026
Polymeric PFAS in fluoropolymer barrier filmsUsed in regulated medical-device-equivalent applications where no alternative exists; subject to a Commission delegated act.Pending — no qualifying application has been granted for general food packaging.
Trace background contaminationPFAS below the limit of quantification (LoQ) of the test method, demonstrated by accredited lab.Treated as “not detected”; not a substantive exemption.

How to test and document

Article 5(7) directs the Commission to specify test methods via implementing acts. In practice, the methods of record are:

  • EN 17681-1 / -2 — extractable organic fluorine (EOF) as a screening method, followed by targeted LC-MS/MS analysis for the 40+ regulated PFAS species.
  • ISO/TS 23926 — total organic fluorine combustion ion chromatography (CIC), used as a faster screening tool.
  • National method equivalents — Danish AFFF method, German BfR guidance — accepted where they produce results comparable to EN 17681 within stated tolerance.

A passing test result is documented in the Declaration of Conformity (see Article 11) as a cited line item: “PFAS < LoQ (25 µg/kg) per EN 17681-1, test report XYZ dated YYYY-MM-DD, accredited laboratory ABC.” Authorities will request the underlying test report on inspection.

The Commission's March 2026 guidance frames PFAS testing as a three-step decision tree:

StepTestOutcome
1Total fluorine (TF) screening< 50 ppm → compliant, stop here
2Targeted PFAS analysis (LC-MS/MS)Each non-polymeric PFAS < 25 ppb AND the sum < 250 ppb → compliant
3Fluorine source identificationTF > 50 ppm: provide evidence of how much fluorine is PFAS vs non-PFAS

What to ask suppliers right now

For every food-contact SKU in your portfolio, you need three pieces of evidence from the upstream material supplier:

  • A written confirmation of no intentionally added PFAS in the packaging material or its production aids.
  • A test report meeting EN 17681 (or equivalent) showing total PFAS < 25 µg/kg.
  • For recycled-content packaging: a chain-of-custody declaration on the recyclate feedstock excluding PFAS-contaminated streams.

→ Carbonorm tracks PFAS status (none / exempt / non-exempt) per SKU, sends magic-link data requests to suppliers for missing test reports, and refuses to generate a Declaration of Conformity for any food-contact item without a clean PFAS result.

Penalties for non-compliance

Article 5 violations are calibrated nationally under Article 67, but member-state guidance points to the upper end of the penalty schedule because PFAS is treated as a substance-of-concern violation rather than a design defect:

  • Germany — up to €5 000 per SKU placed on the market, with a market-withdrawal order.
  • France — administrative fine up to €15 000 per item under DGCCRF authority.
  • Italy — penalty up to €25 000 plus seizure of the affected lots.