Food safety managers, caterers, and healthcare kitchens across Australia are rethinking what touches their food. Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, have long been used as grease and moisture barriers in paper and cardboard packaging, and removing them is now a compliance and reputational priority. Many operators are switching to certified alternatives, such as this round sugarcane plate, while reviewing their broader range of food packaging supplies to identify where forever chemicals may still be present. Understanding what PFAS are, where they hide, and how to phase them out helps food businesses protect staff, customers, and patients while staying ahead of regulatory change.
What Are PFAS and Why Are They a Concern in Food Packaging?
PFAS are manufactured chemicals valued for resisting heat, grease, and moisture, which made them popular coatings for takeaway boxes, baking paper, and moulded fibre containers. They persist in the environment and the body, so health and environmental authorities now treat their presence in food packaging as an avoidable risk rather than a necessary trade-off.
Because PFAS do not break down naturally, they can accumulate in soil and waterways when packaging is composted, landfilled, or recycled. For healthcare and aged care kitchens, where infection control and patient safety already demand strict material scrutiny, removing an unnecessary chemical exposure pathway is a straightforward extension of existing food safety practice. Hospitality operators face similar pressure from consumers and supply chain auditors who increasingly ask what coatings sit beneath the surface of their packaging.
Is PFAS Being Phased Out of Food Packaging in Australia?
Australia has moved to restrict several PFAS chemicals in manufacturing and import, and industry bodies are coordinating a broader phase-out of added PFAS from fibre-based food packaging. Businesses should treat this as a shift already underway rather than a distant future requirement.
Food packaging suppliers are progressively reformulating products to remove fluorinated coatings, and procurement teams are being asked to confirm PFAS-free status in writing. For food businesses, this means checking supplier documentation rather than assuming that paper-based packaging is automatically safe. Compostable or recyclable labeling alone does not guarantee a product is free of added PFAS, so specific confirmation from the manufacturer remains the most reliable approach.
What Are the Safer Alternatives to PFAS Treated Packaging?
Plant fibre packaging made from sugarcane bagasse, bamboo, or uncoated recycled paperboard offers grease and moisture resistance without fluorinated chemicals, making it a practical substitute for takeaway containers, plates, and bowls across hospitality and healthcare settings.
Sugarcane bagasse, a by-product of sugar processing, is moulded into sturdy plates and containers that withstand hot and oily food without needing a chemical barrier coating. Because it relies on the natural density of the fibre rather than a treated surface, it avoids the forever chemical question entirely. Uncoated recycled paperboard and water-based coated alternatives are also emerging for wrapping and liners, though food businesses should confirm the specific coating technology used before assuming a product is PFAS-free.
How Does Sugarcane Packaging Compare to PFAS-Treated Packaging in Practice?
Sugarcane packaging performs similarly to PFAS-treated packaging for most hot and cold food service tasks while offering easier composting and clearer chemical transparency, making it a reliable everyday substitute rather than a compromise on function.
Kitchens that trial sugarcane plates and bowls typically find they hold up well under standard service conditions, including hot meals, sauces, and reheating. The main adjustment is sourcing the correct product for each application, since not every plant fibre item is designed for the same temperature range or liquid content.
How Can Food Businesses Transition Away from PFAS Packaging?
A structured transition starts with auditing current packaging, requesting written PFAS-free confirmation from suppliers, trialing alternatives in real service conditions, and updating purchasing policies so new stock defaults to verified PFAS-free options.
Start by listing every paper, cardboard, or moulded fibre item currently in use, from plates and clamshells to baking paper and liners, then contact each supplier for documented confirmation of PFAS status. Where confirmation is unavailable, treat the item as a priority for replacement. Trial replacement products under normal service pressure before a full rollout, since performance under real kitchen conditions matters more than specification sheets alone. Finally, update procurement policy so future orders default to verified PFAS-free packaging, reducing the risk of reintroducing treated stock through routine reordering.
What Should Hospitality and Healthcare Operators Look for When Choosing PFAS-Free Packaging?
Operators should look for explicit written confirmation of PFAS-free status, appropriate certification for composability or recyclability, and packaging tested for the specific food types and temperatures used in their kitchen or ward.
Marketing terms such as “natural,” “eco,” or “biodegradable” do not confirm the absence of PFAS on their own, so it is worth asking suppliers directly for a statement of composition or a relevant certification. Healthcare and aged care providers should also factor packaging choice into broader infection control and procurement policy reviews, since consistent, documented sourcing decisions are easier to defend during audits. For hospitality venues, PFAS-free packaging can also become a point of difference when communicating sustainability credentials to increasingly conscious customers.
Removing PFAS from food contact packaging is achievable with a methodical approach: understand the risk, confirm supplier claims in writing, trial genuine alternatives, and embed PFAS-free sourcing into ongoing purchasing decisions across the kitchen or facility.
References:
