EU Commission sounds €440B PFAS cost alarm as food sector accelerates alternatives

A new study commissioned by the European Commission warns that Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” could have far-reaching societal and economic consequences, including for the F&B industry. The report estimates that the compounds’ present levels of pollution could cost the EU approximately €440 billion (~US$520 billion) by 2050, without regulatory action.

While regulatory and scientific authorities emphasize the urgent need to address PFAS contamination in the food chain, key industry players are exploring substitutes, such as plant-based materials, to reduce reliance on synthetic PFAS in food packaging.

PFAS are persistent chemicals used in industrial and consumer products for their water, oil, and dirt-repellent properties. Their presence in food packaging and production can adversely impact human health, food safety, and the environment.

The “eternal pollutants” have found their way into products such as beer in the US, fruit and vegetables in the EU, and food packaging in Canada, underscoring the urgent need for measures to prevent further contamination.

Food Ingredients First speaks with F&B industry leaders, food safety authorities, and PFAS experts to understand the growing concerns surrounding PFAS contamination, particularly in relation to food safety, regulatory compliance, and packaging.

Reducing PFAS use aligns with a broader shift toward renewable and bio-based materials, says Olshanskaya.“PFAS has moved beyond being a technical regulatory issue and into the mainstream. Public awareness has increased significantly, particularly around the presence of PFAS in drinking water and the wider environment,” says Anna Olshanskaya, director of Product Lines for Industrial Starches, Paper and Packaging for Cargill SST Europe.

The report underscores the persistent nature of PFAS, which can accumulate in food systems, including fish, meat, and eggs. Consumers can be exposed to it when they eat PFAS-contaminated foods or when using products made with PFAS or packaged in materials containing PFAS.

“Studies have found that consumption of fish can increase blood PFAS levels by 20–40%. Other products, including meat, eggs, dairy, and fruit and vegetables, are also relevant exposure pathways,” says Kristina Flexman, principal consultant at WSP, which supported the study.

“For example, in one region of Belgium, authorities advised residents to avoid the consumption of eggs due to PFAS contamination.”

Seafood and eggs at risk?

The study’s calculations used data from the EFSA PFAS risk assessment for food (2020) — including average concentrations for different types of PFAS, such as Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexane Sulfonic Acid (PFHxS), and Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA).

PFAS or “forever chemicals” do not easily break down and can accumulate in ecosystems and food chains over time, increasing dietary exposure.It also included the EFSA 2022 food consumption survey (for adults and children across member states). “The results highlight that different food types have different potential levels of PFAS contamination, with fish presenting the highest values. One possible hypothesis is that due to the very high persistence of PFAS and environmental pathways, the sea is the natural final destination of these substances from rivers and rainfall,” says WSP’s technical director, Rob Whiting.

An EFSA spokesperson tells us that the organization’s 2020 risk assessment identified fish, fruit, fruit products, egg, and egg products as the main contributors to PFAS exposure in food. It focused on four PFAS types — PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS — which together accounted for about half of total exposure.

“Considering evidence of potential effects on the immune system, EFSA established a group tolerable weekly intake of 4.4 ng/kg body weight per week for the combined exposure to these four substances.”

The EU has already taken significant steps to control the risks from exposure to PFAS. It has implemented maximum permitted levels for specific PFAS in foods, through Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915, to help limit dietary exposure.

F&B PFAS data gaps

For Sean Gormley, principal chemist and emerging contaminants subject-matter expert at Haley & Aldrich, PFAS contamination in the food industry is a topic of high interest but “challenging” due to limited data.

While there are previous or ongoing studies on PFAS in agricultural lands and products, “spatial and crop-type coverage is incomplete,” and there is “no or limited systematic monitoring” of PFAS to permit definitive evaluation.

EU PFAS limits for eggs, seafood, and livestock mean non-compliant products must be discarded, says Flexman.“In addition, current analytical methodologies allow monitoring for only a subset of PFAS known to be used in commerce, and usability of methods that detect organic fluorine is hampered by high detection limits, rendering the data unusable for many purposes. There is a similar scarcity of information for finished food products,” Gormley adds.

Consequently, the scale and significance of PFAS in the food chain remain “unclear.” However, data from EU and US authorities show that some people may be exposed to PFAS levels in their diet that could harm their health.

The EFSA spokesperson adds that, as data gap challenges persist across many foods, the European Commission has asked member states to “step up” PFAS monitoring. “The data collected between 2022 and 2025 are being submitted to EFSA through its annual call for chemical contaminant occurrence data.”

“EFSA is also working on new assessments, including a review of health-based reference values for trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a PFAS breakdown product, and a joint request with ECHA on TFA behavior in soil and water.”

Regulatory and consumer push

In the EU, the use of PFAS in specific food packaging applications is set to stop from August this year. “That deadline is concentrating minds. Brand owners are no longer exploring alternatives out of interest — they are doing so out of necessity,” says Cargill’s Olshanskaya.

Plant-based alternatives to PFAS allow the needed functionality to manufacturers without relying on synthetic PFAS chemistries, says Finkelstein.The looming deadline points to a “clear expectation” that suppliers bring forward validated, scalable solutions that meet food-contact standards and can be implemented immediately, she adds.

“We apply strict supplier standards, traceability systems, and food safety controls designed to meet EU regulatory requirements and ensure that ingredients placed on the market comply with applicable limits.”

Meanwhile, Gormley considers consumer sentiment a stronger driver of fading PFAS use in F&B than regulations.

“Survey after survey shows that consumer sentiment is uniformly negative to the presence of PFAS in consumer products in general, but especially to the presence in food, beverages, and children’s products.”

Gormley asserts that the F&B industry will need to continue to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the presence of PFAS in its products. “Many in the industry have already been voluntarily acting to do so, and the continued evolution of regulations in both the EU and in many US states will force every business to do so, or risk loss of market share.”

Replacing PFAS in F&B

Public health advocates have often called for replacing PFAS despite the associated financial challenges.

However, replacing the substance is difficult without losing functional performance, flags Jake Finkelstein, senior analyst, marketing, Industrial Ingredients at Ingredion.

PFAS have been used in fast food packaging for grease resistance, with opportunities to switch to non-PFAS alternatives, says Whiting.“Moving to alternative materials requires disciplined testing and a comprehensive understanding of performance across a manufacturer’s end-to-end process.”

Ingredion is addressing these challenges through plant-based substitutes for PFAS technologies, including starch-based oil- and grease-resistant coatings.

“We work closely with papermakers to support their move away from PFAS. Through this work, we have developed plant-based solutions that deliver the barrier performance customers need while avoiding the concerns associated with PFAS in paper packaging,” Finkelstein notes.

Olshanskaya says Cargill is targeting “viable and scalable alternatives” that are technically robust and commercially realistic.

“We have focused on expanding non-fluorinated, bio-based barrier technologies that align with this direction of travel. That includes optimizing coating viscosity, solids content and adhesion properties to ensure performance on existing industrial lines, as well as validating drying efficiency and energy implications, because operational feasibility matters as much as chemistry.”

Meanwhile, EFSA’s recent online workshop discussed the scale and complexity of PFAS, the spokesperson tells us. “Participants agreed that PFAS represents a long-term scientific and regulatory challenge that can only be addressed through coordinated action across sectors.”

Calls for immediate PFAS action

The European Commission’s study emphasizes the need “to take action now,” and begin reducing or eliminating PFAS in raw materials, packaging, and finished products, Gormley says.

Gormley: Until PFAS are eliminated, purchasing controls and testing are needed to ensure raw materials and products meet regulatory and customer requirements.He recommends that F&B businesses engage a “knowledgeable, PFAS-experienced consultant and legal counsel” to help them navigate the process of reducing or eliminating PFAS.

With EU food limits for PFAS established for eggs, seafood, and livestock produce, Flexman at WSP points to the industry’s need to discard non-compliant food, which would result in economic losses.

Since some fluorinated pesticides break down into TFA (a PFAS of emerging concern), she also suggests the industry could explore “PFAS-free pesticides” to reduce the risk of contamination.

To identify PFAS in the supply chain, WSP recommends a full review of materials for known or “suspected PFAS use” and cross-functional collaboration from procurement to environment, health, and safety teams.

Whiting welcomes the EU’s efforts to tackle the issues at their source through the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) process. “This would limit or eliminate future emissions of PFAS, with longer-term benefits for food production in terms of avoiding further contamination.”

The EU has banned PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and long-chain Perfluorocarboxylic Acids (PFCAs) to limit PFAS exposure, while the European Chemicals Agency is currently assessing a universal PFAS restriction proposal due by year-end, which will inform the commission’s next steps.