Food for Thought: What Maine’s PFAS Law Means for Food Packaging
Executive Summary
Food packaging has long been evaluated on safety at the surface: migration limits, barrier performance, and end-of-life considerations. But regulatory attention is now moving upstream, into the materials and additives that quietly shape packaging performance—including colorants. Maine’s PFAS statute is a clear signal of this shift.
For food packaging manufacturers, the law reframes risk. It no longer asks whether a finished package performs safely in isolation. It asks whether every intentionally added chemical in that package—including pigments—can be disclosed, defended, and ultimately justified. At Nature Coatings, we see this as a defining moment for how color is sourced, verified, and integrated into food-contact materials.
Why PFAS Regulation Now Reaches Colorants
PFAS restrictions in food packaging are not new, but Maine’s approach is different. The statute requires manufacturers to report intentionally added PFAS and moves toward a full ban unless uses are deemed “currently unavoidable.” Importantly, pigments and processing aids can fall within this scope if they introduce fluorinated chemistry into packaging systems. Carbon black pigments rely on complex manufacturing processes that include intentionally adding PFASsurface treatments to improve performance. In a regulatory environment that demands disclosure and traceability, uncertainty itself becomes a liability. For food packaging brands, that creates a new question: Can you prove what your color is made of?
Why PFAS in Food Packaging Is a Public Health Concern
PFAS regulation in food packaging is not driven by theoretical risk. It is driven by mounting evidence that these chemicals migrate, persist, and accumulate in ways that challenge traditional food safety frameworks.
PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down in the environment or the human body. When used in food-contact materials—such as grease-resistant papers, coatings, inks, or additives—they can migrate into food during normal use. Unlike many legacy additives, PFAS exposure is cumulative. Small, repeated doses over time contribute to a growing body burden.
Public health agencies have linked certain PFAS compounds to a range of adverse outcomes, including immune system suppression, developmental effects, hormone disruption, and increased cancer risk. While toxicological profiles vary across the PFAS class, regulators are increasingly treating them as a group because of shared persistence and exposure pathways. For food packaging, this grouping matters: it shifts the standard from “safe below a threshold” to “unnecessary exposure should be eliminated.”
This is why Maine’s law focuses on intentionally added PFAS, rather than waiting for conclusive evidence of harm from each individual compound. From a public health perspective, preventing avoidable exposure—especially through food—is a precautionary approach rooted in risk reduction, not speculation.
What Compliance Really Looks Like for Food Packaging
Food packaging manufacturers are now expected to demonstrate three things simultaneously:
Absence of intentionally added PFAS
Transparency across the full materials stack
Long-term regulatory viability beyond a single state
Maine’s law accelerates this expectation. Because food packaging is one of the first categories targeted for PFAS restrictions, companies are being pushed to reformulate now—not in 2030. Colorants that introduce reporting obligations or future redesign risk undermine speed-to-market and complicate customer trust.
How BioBlack Fits a PFAS-Constrained Future
Black packaging often uses carbon black, which contains some of the highest levels of PFAS of any color. That’s why at Nature Coatings, we developed BioBlack as a verified, 100% biobased black pigment made from certified wood waste, with traceability built into its supply chain. For food packaging applications, this matters in very practical ways.
BioBlack contains no intentionally added PFAS and does not rely on fluorinated processing aids. That means it does not trigger PFAS reporting obligations under Maine’s statute and does not jeopardize future compliance as bans expand. Just as importantly, its material story is verifiable. Customers can document what it is—and what it is not—without caveats.
In a sector where compliance teams increasingly shape material decisions, that clarity becomes operational value.
From Risk Management to Design Confidence
Maine’s law reframes material selection as a long-term design decision, not a short-term substitution. Food packaging companies that wait for exemptions or temporary allowances may find themselves redesigning products repeatedly as regulations tighten.
Choosing pigments that are already aligned with disclosure requirements and future bans reduces that churn. It allows packaging teams to focus on performance and brand differentiation, rather than reactive reformulation. In this context, BioBlack is not simply a color solution—it is a way to remove uncertainty from the system.
Not All Bio-Based Pigments Are Equal
As PFAS scrutiny increases, some suppliers will position bio-based materials as inherently safer. But many bio-based pigments still depend on imported intermediates, fossil-derived processing aids, or opaque treatment steps. Bio-based alone does not guarantee regulatory readiness.
BioBlack’s differentiation lies in its verifiable composition, domestic production, and absence of fluorinated chemistry. That combination is what allows food packaging customers to move from claims to documentation.
Looking Ahead
Maine’s PFAS statute is unlikely to remain an outlier. It represents a broader shift toward chemical accountability in food-contact materials—one that rewards transparency, simplicity, and foresight. At Nature Coatings, we believe the future of food packaging color will be defined not by what can be hidden in formulations, but by what can be clearly proven.