Expanded PFAS Restrictions Underway
Senate Bill 903, authored by Senator Nancy Skinner, seeks to update California’s existing ban on PFAS in food packaging by adopting a new definition of PFAS based on detectable levels. Under the bill, packaging containing more than 100 parts per million of total organic fluorine would be considered non-compliant. This approach mirrors laws already enacted in Washington, Colorado, and Minnesota.
If passed, the new law would replace the original threshold that focused on "intentional" PFAS use. By setting a measurable content limit, California aims to close enforcement gaps and align with emerging national standards. For foodservice operators, this may require re-evaluation of packaging inventories and closer coordination with suppliers to verify compliance, especially for grease-resistant wrappers, molded fiber trays, and paperboard containers.
New Focus On Additional Chemicals Of Concern
Another measure, Assembly Bill 2761, would authorize the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to evaluate other food packaging materials under its Safer Consumer Products program. This includes potential scrutiny of polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and expanded polystyrene (EPS) materials commonly used across the industry.
If finalized, the DTSC could require manufacturers to conduct chemical assessments and consider safer alternatives. This would effectively broaden oversight beyond PFAS and put more materials under regulatory review. For operators and restaurant groups, the implication is clear: future restrictions could affect widely used containers, cups, and clamshells.
Timeline & Industry Response
Both bills passed their respective chambers in May and are now moving through committee review in the opposite house. If approved, SB 903 would go into effect January 1, 2026. AB 2761 does not specify immediate restrictions but opens the door to future rulemaking under California’s green chemistry framework.
While packaging industry groups have expressed concern over the feasibility of some measures, public health advocates argue they are necessary to reduce consumer exposure to persistent and potentially harmful substances. National foodservice brands, distributors, and procurement teams may need to start planning for greater transparency and reformulation across packaging portfolios.
What Comes Next
With California often setting the tone for environmental regulation, these legislative developments are likely to resonate nationally. States such as New York and Oregon are pursuing similar initiatives, and federal policymakers are increasingly focused on chemical safety in consumer goods.
For foodservice stakeholders, preparing early for potential packaging reforms may reduce risk and support long-term sustainability goals. Whether through internal audits or supplier partnerships, proactive steps now can help avoid disruption if and when new rules take effect.
