Federal Action: FDA and EPA

The first major federal step came in February 2024, when the FDA announced that manufacturers had completed a voluntary phase-out of PFAS-based grease-proofing agents in food packaging. The ban was prompted by evidence of chemical migration into food and years of advocacy from states and NGOs. For packaging compliance, this action provided uniformity: all suppliers must now use non-PFAS alternatives.

At the same time, the EPA accelerated its PFAS Strategic Roadmap (2021–2024). In 2024, the agency announced its achievements, including:

• Established drinking water standards, with legally enforceable levels for several PFAS known to occur individually and as mixtures in drinking water

• Designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, enabling cost recovery and cleanup authority, such that polluters pay for investigations and cleanup. 

• Set up new reporting and disclosure rules, requiring manufacturers to report PFAS data (Note: Now delayed until October 2026 under new rules published in May 2025).

• Issued a “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR), preventing 329 previously phased-out PFAS from reentering commerce without review.

Taken together, these measures created the first comprehensive federal framework for managing PFAS.

2025: Rollbacks and Political Volatility

In 2025, the new administration proposed changes that could shift the course of how PFAS regulations are going to evolve. 

In May 2025, the EPA announced its intention to “provide regulatory flexibility and holistically address” PFAS in drinking water, including extending compliance deadlines from 2029 to 2031. While it is keeping the standards for PFOA and PFOS (the two most common PFAS chemicals) in place, it is now reconsidering the limits for the other four listed in the initial regulation, including PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. The new administration has also pulled back research funding on PFAS contamination on U.S. farmlands.

State Leadership: Maine, Minnesota, and Beyond

While federal action is new and evolving as we speak, states have been leading for years, but with widely varying standards on the maximum concentration allowed. Examples include:

• Maine passed LD 1503, requiring disclosure of PFAS in all products by 2025 and prohibiting sales by 2030 unless use is deemed “currently unavoidable.”

• Minnesota adopted Amara’s Law, banning PFAS in 11 categories (cookware, cosmetics, textiles, children’s products, etc.) starting January 1, 2025, mandating reporting by 2026, and prohibiting all non-essential PFAS by 2032.

• California lists PFOA and PFOS under Proposition 65 and has passed bans on PFAS in food packaging (2023), textiles (2025), and cosmetics (2025).

• Washington’s Healthy Food Packaging Act (effective 2023) banned PFAS in paper food packaging, and soon in other product categories under its Safer Products program.

• New York has banned intentionally added PFAS in food packaging (2023) and recently in most clothing by 2025.

As mentioned in our previous post, states have sued PFAS manufacturers like 3M and DuPont, to recover the costs of cleaning up PFAS from drinking water and the environment. These lawsuits have yielded multi-billion dollar settlements in the past few years (e.g., 3M’s $10.3 billion settlement for water systems). 

What This Means for Consumer Companies

These laws mean PFAS is no longer a niche chemical issue but a mainstream consumer product regulation. While federal actions create uncertainty, state laws and consumer expectations are unlikely to retreat. Companies selling into these states must already meet or plan for PFAS-free packaging, product disclosure, and reporting. 

Navigating the state landscape can seem like a maze – each state with its own timelines and targets. For a multi-state business, the safest strategy is to align with the most stringent requirements among all your markets. As of now, that means planning for no intentional PFAS in any consumer products within the next 5–7 years, and preparing to disclose current PFAS usage in the interim.

Here are what companies would need to do:

1. Audit packaging and products: PFAS can be present in coatings, inks, adhesives, and fluorinated plastics. Begin supplier surveys and product testing to identify where PFAS exists in your portfolio.

2. Prepare for disclosure requirements: Several states already require product-level PFAS reporting, including CAS numbers and intended use, and other states are following suit. Having the data handy is always helpful to ensure you are well prepared.

3. Redesign products and packaging (if necessary): Invest in alternatives for grease resistance, stain repellence, and waterproofing. For example, California’s 2025 bans on textiles and cosmetics PFAS make reformulation urgent.

4. Track state and federal developments: Set up monitoring for both federal EPA rulemakings and state legislatures. The landscape is shifting quickly, and compliance requires real-time awareness.

5. Leverage compliance as a differentiator: Communicating proactive PFAS phase-outs can strengthen brand trust with retailers and consumers.

Conclusion

In just a few years, PFAS regulation in the U.S. has gone from individual bans to a sweeping set of federal and state measures. The FDA’s food packaging ban, EPA’s drinking water and Superfund actions, and state product bans are reshaping supply chains. At the same time, political shifts raise uncertainty, with some protections at risk of rollback.

For compliance and sustainability managers, the implications are straightforward: PFAS use in packaging and consumer goods is becoming untenable. The most resilient companies will treat PFAS hazards to be designed out of products entirely. The companies that start now will not only avoid fines and lawsuits but also gain a competitive edge in meeting consumer demand for safer, more sustainable products.

In our last and final series to come, we will look at global regulations and explore how governments around the world are responding to PFAS risks, and how companies with a global footprint should be prepared for them all.