What is the 50 mg/kg total-fluorine duty under Article 5(5)?

If total fluorine in the packaging exceeds 50 mg/kg, the manufacturer, importer or downstream user as defined in Article 3, points (9), (11) and (13) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 must, upon request, provide to the manufacturer or the importer as defined in Article 3(1), points (13) and (17) of the PPWR proof of the quantity of fluorine measured as content of either PFAS or non-PFAS, so that they can draw up the technical documentation in Annex VII. It is a request-driven duty on the supplier side, not a filing by the seller.

Does the PFAS rule cover paper and board, or only plastic packaging?

The limit is written for 'food-contact packaging' without naming a material, and Article 5(5) does not distinguish plastic from paper and board. The Commission's PPWR FAQ adds that the limits apply to the packaging unit as a whole, including the associated inks, varnishes, glues and adhesives. The PPWR does not define 'food-contact packaging' in Article 3 and contains no list of the articles covered; the pizza boxes, burger wrappers, popcorn bags, greaseproof paper and takeaway containers circulating in the press are illustration, not legal text.

Can packaging placed on the market before 12 August 2026 still be used and sold?

Yes, under the Commission's PPWR FAQ: 'Packaging that has been placed on the market before 12 August 2026 can remain on the market, even if it is non-compliant with PPWR.' Recital 14 of the Regulation says the same for packaging already placed on the Union market and in the stocks of distributors, including retailers and wholesalers. Placing on the market is the first making available on the Union market, so what matters is that first supply, not the day the box is used.

KontorBund — Note PFAS in food-contact packaging: the limits that apply from 12 August 2026
Last checked 7 October 2026
kontorbund.com/notes/eu-pfas-food-contact-packaging.html

The Library

PFAS in food-contact packaging: the limits that apply from 12 August 2026

Q: Which PFAS limits apply to food-contact packaging from 12 August 2026?

Article 5(5) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40: from 12 August 2026 food-contact packaging must not be placed on the EU market if it contains PFAS at or above 25 ppb for any PFAS as measured with targeted PFAS analysis, 250 ppb for the sum of PFAS measured as the sum of targeted PFAS analysis where applicable with prior degradation of precursors, or 50 ppm for PFAS including polymeric PFAS. Polymeric PFAS are excluded from the quantification in the first two limits and included in the third.

Last checked7 October 2026

KeeperOpen — keeper wanted

StatusLive since 12 August 2026

The short version

Since 12 August 2026, food-contact packaging may not be placed on the market in the EU if it contains PFAS at or above 25 ppb for any PFAS, 250 ppb for the sum of PFAS, or 50 ppm including polymeric PFAS. That is Art. 5(5) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 — the PPWR — and it is where the thresholds live; it is not a separate food-contact instrument, and the reported citation checks out. One duty travels in the same paragraph and gets far less coverage: where total fluorine exceeds 50 mg/kg, the manufacturer, importer or downstream user up the chain must, on request, prove how much of that fluorine comes from PFAS and how much does not, so the manufacturer or importer can write the Annex VII technical documentation. For a small food seller that arrives as a question to your packaging supplier, not as a return. And it is a placing-on-the-market rule: packaging placed on the market before 12 August 2026 may keep circulating even if it would not pass today.

The three limits, in the Regulation's own words

Read the paragraph in full before you read anyone's summary of it, including ours. It prohibits placing on the market, it says at or above the limit values rather than "above", and it says food-contact packaging rather than "packaging". The instrument is Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste — the PPWR — and the thresholds are in Article 5(5), in the chapter on sustainability requirements.

`Art. 5(5)`

"From 12 August 2026, food-contact packaging shall not be placed on the market if it contains per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in a concentration equal to or above the following limit values to the extent that the placing on the market of packaging containing such a concentration of PFAS is not prohibited pursuant to another Union legal act: (a) 25 ppb for any PFAS as measured with targeted PFAS analysis (polymeric PFAS excluded from quantification); (b) 250 ppb for the sum of PFAS measured as the sum of targeted PFAS analysis, where applicable with prior degradation of precursors (polymeric PFAS excluded from quantification); and (c) 50 ppm for PFASs (including polymeric PFAS)."

Limit 1 — 25 ppb: Any single PFAS, measured with targeted PFAS analysis. Polymeric PFAS are excluded from the quantification at this limit.
Limit 2 — 250 ppb: The sum of PFAS, again as the sum of targeted analysis — and "where applicable with prior degradation of precursors". So the precursors are not added on top of a result; they are made to show up in it by degrading the sample first. Polymeric PFAS are excluded here too.
Limit 3 — 50 ppm: PFAS including polymeric PFAS. This is the only one of the three that counts them, which is why a report can clear one limit and fail another.
What "PFAS" means here: The same paragraph defines it by structure: any substance containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom, with listed exceptions for CF₃-X and X-CF₂-X′ structures. A list of affected PFAS with CAS numbers will not be published; the Commission's FAQ says so and adds that the limits apply to all PFAS falling under that definition.
Intentional or not: The limits do not distinguish between intentionally added and unintentionally present PFAS — the Commission's FAQ is explicit, and notes that in its preliminary laboratory work on selected packaging only packaging with intentionally added PFAS came out above the limits.
Not a blanket ban: The FAQ puts the common shorthand right: the PPWR does not establish a PFAS ban but sets maximum concentration levels, and those levels fold into the manufacturer's technical documentation rather than into a flat prohibition. The Regulation itself says the prohibition applies only to the extent that another Union act does not already prohibit that placing on the market.
Where compliance is written down: Art. 5(6): compliance with the heavy-metal limit in (4) and the PFAS limits in (5) is demonstrated in the technical documentation drawn up under Annex VII. Who owes that file, and how long it is kept, is the declaration of conformity note.
The review clause: By 12 August 2030 the Commission must assess whether to amend or repeal this paragraph to avoid overlaps with PFAS rules under the food-contact framework, REACH or the POPs Regulation. The limits as written stand until that changes.

Two fives that are not the same thing. The third limit is 50 ppm of PFAS, including polymeric PFAS. The trigger in the next paragraph is 50 mg/kg of total fluorine. ppm and mg/kg are the same unit step, so the numbers look alike — the measured quantity does not. One is PFAS; the other is all fluorine in the material, and in practice that includes fluorine that is not PFAS at all.

The 50 mg/kg total-fluorine duty

This is the part the press report highlighted as new, and it is worth reading precisely, because the duty is not where a quick summary puts it: it sits on the supply side, and it is owed on request.

The rest of `Art. 5(5)`

"… if total fluorine exceeds 50 mg/kg the manufacturer, importer or downstream user as defined respectively in Article 3, points (9), (11) and (13) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 shall, upon request, provide to the manufacturer or the importer as defined respectively in Article 3(1), points (13) and (17), of this Regulation proof of the quantity of fluorine measured as content of either PFAS or non-PFAS in order for them to draw up the technical documentation as referred to in Annex VII to this Regulation."

Who carries the duty: The REACH definitions, not the PPWR's: the manufacturer, importer or downstream user under Article 3, points (9), (11) and (13) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. In a packaging chain that is the party making or trading the material or the converted article — typically upstream of whoever places the finished packaging on the market.
Who receives it: The manufacturer or the importer as the PPWR defines them — Art. 3(1), points (13) and (17) of this Regulation. If your name or trademark is on the box, that is you.
What has to be shown: Proof of the quantity of fluorine, measured as content of either PFAS or non-PFAS. In plain terms: a split of the fluorine figure into the part attached to PFAS and the part attached to something else. Fluorine is far from a PFAS-exclusive element, which is the reason the split exists.
Why it exists: The purpose is on the face of the text: "in order for them to draw up the technical documentation as referred to in Annex VII". It is an evidence duty that feeds the file, not a separate reporting obligation to an authority.
Trigger, not target: 50 mg/kg is where the evidence duty switches on. It is not a PFAS limit, and passing it says nothing about compliance with the three thresholds above.
Where the fluorine figure comes from: Total fluorine / total organic fluorine analysis. The Commission's FAQ records that commercial and university laboratories already offer it and that it expects more accredited capacity to appear. One of its questions takes total fluorine analysis as the starting point for enforcement of the PFAS limits; the answer there is about testing capacity, not about a threshold.

A question you can hand to a supplier. "Does the technical data for this article show total fluorine above 50 mg/kg, and if so, what is the split between PFAS fluorine and non-PFAS fluorine?" That is the shape of Art. 5(5). Art. 16(1) obliges suppliers to give the manufacturer the documentation needed to demonstrate conformity, and the Commission's FAQ says they cannot refuse.

What is in scope — and what the text does not list

The press report we worked from named pizza boxes, burger wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, greaseproof paper and takeaway containers. That is a useful illustration of what food-contact packaging looks like behind a counter, and it is not in the Regulation. The text says food-contact packaging, full stop — no article list, and no material list either.

The material: Art. 5(5) names no material. Art. 3(1), point (1) defines packaging as an item "irrespective of the materials from which it is made", so paper and board are not outside the limit because the limit never mentioned plastic in the first place. Barrier coatings and liners on board are where this bites in practice.
The unit: The FAQ's answer is that the limits apply to the packaging unit as a whole, "including the associated inks, varnishes, glues and adhesives placed on the market by the manufacturer". A clean substrate with a fluorine-containing varnish is not a clean unit.
"Food-contact packaging" is not a defined term here: We searched the definitions article: Art. 3 does not define it. The Regulation uses the term in Art. 5(5) and in recital 21 and leaves it at that. If you want to argue a wrapper is never in contact with the food, note that this cuts both ways — there is no definition to argue from, only the phrase.
The PPWR's own example of the genre: Art. 3(1), point (3) defines take-away packaging: service packaging filled at attended points of sale with beverages or ready-prepared food, packaged for transport and immediate consumption elsewhere, typically eaten from the packaging. That is a definition of packaging, not a list of PFAS-covered items — but it is the closest the Regulation comes to naming the formats the press listed.
And a reminder that "is it packaging at all" comes first: Annex I lists sandwich bags and disposable plates and cups as packaging where they are designed and intended to be filled at the point of sale, and lists wrapping paper sold separately and paper baking cases sold empty as not packaging. Whether an item is packaging is the threshold question before any PFAS question is asked.
No harmonised test method yet: The Commission's FAQ concedes there are no harmonised methodologies for PFAS in food-contact packaging at EU level, that it is working with the EURL on food contact materials towards a harmonised testing protocol, and that national market surveillance authorities are being steered towards a common approach. Two laboratories can therefore differ on the same box.

Stock placed on the market before 12 August 2026

The rule that saves most small sellers any panic is a placing-on-the-market rule, and both the Regulation and the Commission's FAQ state it.

What "placed on the market" means: Art. 3(1), point (10): the first making available of the packaging, empty or with a product, on the Union market. The first supply by the manufacturer or importer, not the shelf, the sale or the day the box is filled.
The FAQ's line: Asked what happens to packaging held in stock or already produced before 12 August 2026, the FAQ answers: "Packaging that has been placed on the market before 12 August 2026 can remain on the market, even if it is non-compliant with PPWR."
The same rule in the Regulation: Recital 14: packaging already placed on the Union market before the date of application of the relevant requirements, "including packaging in the stocks of distributors, including retailers and wholesalers", should not need to meet the sustainability and labelling requirements. That is a recital — the operative formulation is the placing-on-the-market concept in Art. 4(1) read with Art. 3(1), point (10).
The stock answer for what was produced but not sold on: The same FAQ question deals with packaging not placed on the market by 12 August 2026 but already produced and sitting in stock: it does not have to be destroyed, remanufactured or relabelled. Read that answer with care — it is framed on the marking duties in Art. 15(5) and (6), and we cannot read out of it an exemption from Art. 5(5). See what we could not establish.
When the old paperwork is missing: The FAQ's answer for packaging manufactured before 12 August 2026 and missing its information: the manufacturer must make best efforts — asking the former supplier, the company that took it over, or making its own assessment. It is not a licence to leave the file empty.

What to ask your packaging supplier

You buy boxes, liners and containers; you do not make them. So this arrives as procurement. Not legal advice, and not a template — five questions that match what Art. 5(5) actually asks for.

1. Ask for the analysis, not the assurance: The technical documentation in Annex VII must include test reports (point 2(f)) and the materials of components (point 2(b)). "PFAS-free" in an email is a statement; a report with a method and a result is evidence. Art. 16(1) already obliges your supplier to hand you what you need to demonstrate conformity.
2. Ask which of the three limits each number answers: A result for a single PFAS does not answer the 250 ppb sum, and neither answers the 50 ppm figure that includes polymeric PFAS. Ask for the targeted PFAS analysis (with the polymeric PFAS exclusion stated), the sum with prior degradation of precursors where applicable, and the total including polymers.
3. Ask for the fluorine number and its split: Above 50 mg/kg total fluorine, the proof of the PFAS / non-PFAS split is what your file needs. Ask for both the total fluorine figure and the split, per article.
4. Ask per article, and ask about the print and the glue: The limits cover the packaging unit as a whole, including inks, varnishes, glues and adhesives. A compliant board with an unknown varnish is an open question, not an answer.
5. Date it and keep it: Record when the stock was first placed on the market — that date is the whole reason older stock can keep circulating. If you are the manufacturer under the PPWR, the file and the declaration are kept 5 years for single-use packaging and 10 years for reusable packaging.

Who "you" are matters. Buy packaging, put your name on it and ship the packaged food, and the PPWR treats you as the manufacturer — the role that owes the technical documentation, not the producer role that owes the EPR registration on the country desks. Manufacturer or producer? maps the two, and the declaration of conformity note sets out the file itself.

What we could not establish

The thresholds and the fluorine duty on this page come from the Regulation's own text. What follows is where the briefing and the text part ways, or where the text simply stops.

We did not read the press report itself: The report we worked from — ESdiario, 7 October 2026 — reached us as a summary with the outlet's front page as its address, not the article. We could not read its body, so nothing on this page is sourced to it. Its two headline claims we can check against the Regulation: the thresholds, and the 12 August 2026 date. Both hold.
The citation in the press report: It attributes the limits to "Reglamento 2025/40". That is correct: Regulation (EU) 2025/40, Art. 5(5). The open question in the briefing — whether the thresholds sit in the PPWR or in a separate food-contact instrument — resolves to the PPWR. There is no separate instrument needed to explain these numbers, and the Commission's FAQ confirms compliance with PFAS in food-contact packaging is an Article 5(5) duty from 12 August 2026.
The list of articles: Pizza boxes, burger wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, greaseproof paper and takeaway containers appear nowhere in the Regulation as a group. We treat them as illustration. If a supplier or a consultant presents that list as the scope, ask which text it comes from — the phrase in Art. 5(5) is food-contact packaging.
"Including precursors": The press wording is looser than the Regulation's. The text says the 250 ppb sum is measured "where applicable with prior degradation of precursors" — a step in the analysis, not a third category of substance added to the sum. If a laboratory reports precursors as a separate number, ask whether the degradation step was actually run.
The "later responsible parties" in the fluorine duty: The briefing described the fluorine split as an obligation on "manufacturers, importers or later responsible parties". The text puts it on the REACH-defined manufacturer, importer or downstream user — the supply side — owed upon request to the PPWR manufacturer or importer. A seller who buys in packaging is normally the recipient of that proof, not the party producing it.
Whether pre-August stock is exempt from the PFAS limits: The clear statement covers packaging already placed on the market. For packaging produced before 12 August 2026 but not yet placed on the market, the FAQ's answer is about marking under Art. 15(5) and (6) and does not say in terms what happens to the substance limits. Read Art. 5(5), Art. 3(1), point (10) and recital 14 together, or ask a lawyer; we are not going to pretend the point is settled.
How enforcement will test it: No harmonised EU method exists yet. The Commission is working with the EURL on food contact materials on a testing protocol, and the FAQ declines to fix the total-fluorine number as a threshold of its own. Until a method is agreed, expect the same box to be judged by different numbers in different member states.

Known traps

"PFAS are banned in packaging"

Two corrections, and they are the Commission's own: the PPWR sets maximum concentration levels rather than a ban, and those limits reach food-contact packaging only. A shipping carton that never touches food is not the target of this paragraph.

"One test report settles it"

Three limits measure three different quantities, two of them exclude polymeric PFAS and the third includes them. A targeted screen of a handful of PFAS is not the sum, and neither is the total fluorine figure.

"50 ppm and 50 mg/kg are the same test"

Same unit step, different measurand. 50 ppm is a limit on PFAS including polymers; 50 mg/kg is a trigger on total fluorine, most of which may be non-PFAS. Passing the trigger is not passing the limit.

"It's only about plastic"

The limit names no material — packaging is defined irrespective of material. Greaseproof liners, coated board and takeaway containers in paper and board sit inside the same sentence as plastic trays.

"My supplier's certificate is my technical file"

The supplier owes you information under Art. 16(1); the file itself is the manufacturer's and cannot be delegated. Suppliers handing over documents does not transfer the legal responsibility.

"Everything I already own is now illegal"

No. Packaging placed on the market before 12 August 2026 can remain on the market even if it is non-compliant — the Commission's own words. The compliance question attaches to what is placed on the market after that date.

"A lab report is valid anywhere in the EU"

There is no harmonised method yet and no official list of PFAS with CAS numbers. A result is only as good as the method named next to it, and market surveillance practice still differs between member states.

Sources

One regulation does all the legal work here, and one FAQ does the interpreting. We name the passage each claim comes from rather than citing either as a lump.

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (PPWR) — EUR-Lex, English text (OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025) Official, and the governing text. Read for this page, and the source of every number here: Art. 5(5) in full for the three limit values, the 12 August 2026 date, the structural definition of PFAS, the 50 mg/kg total-fluorine duty on the REACH manufacturer, importer or downstream user, and the 12 August 2030 review clause; Art. 5(6) for compliance being demonstrated in the Annex VII technical documentation; Art. 5(4) and (7) for the neighbouring heavy-metal limit; Art. 3(1), point (1) for packaging irrespective of material, point (3) for take-away packaging, point (10) for placing on the market, point (13) for manufacturer and point (17) for importer; recitals 14 and 20 to 22 on stocks, on PFAS in food-contact materials and on the restriction; Art. 16(1) on what suppliers owe; Art. 70 and Art. 71 for repeal and the application date; Annex I for the items that are and are not packaging; Annex VII, point 2 for the contents of the technical file and point 4 for the 5- and 10-year retention
European Commission — PPWR Frequently Asked Questions, 2nd edition (KH-01-26-068-EN-N), August 2026 Official, not binding — the document says so about itself. Read for this page, from the copy we mirror and describe here. Chapter I's summary of the main provisions for "compliance with PFAS in food contact packaging from 12 August 2026 (Article 5(5))"; chapter III question 5 on suppliers having to provide what the manufacturer needs to "identify PFAS or other SoC present in packaging", question 12 on the limits applying to food-contact materials only, question 15 on the PPWR setting maximum concentration levels rather than a ban, question 16 on intentionally added and unintentionally present PFAS both being covered, question 17 on the packaging unit as a whole including inks, varnishes, glues and adhesives, question 18 on no published CAS list, question 19 on the absence of harmonised methodologies and the EURL on food contact materials, and question 20 on total fluorine testing being available and being the starting point for enforcement; chapter X question 5 on packaging placed on the market before 12 August 2026 remaining on the market even if non-compliant, and on stock produced before that date, and question 6 on missing information from a former supplier
ESdiario — report on PFAS limits for food-contact containers, 7 October 2026 Secondary, and the report that prompted this note. We could not read it — the address we were given is the outlet's front page, and we did not find the article body. Nothing on this page is sourced to it. Its thresholds and the 12 August 2026 date match Art. 5(5); its list of articles in scope and its framing of the fluorine duty as an obligation on "later responsible parties" do not match the text as we read it

Help us keep this page honest

What would improve this page most is a real supplier document — a PFAS analysis or a total-fluorine certificate for a box, liner or takeaway container, with the method named on it, and the price you were quoted for it. If a market surveillance authority has asked you for the fluorine split, we would rather report that than the text of the paragraph.

Tell us on Discord The declaration of conformity The PPWR calendar Manufacturer or producer?