Per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have moved from a minor contamination concern to a mainstream food safety risk, driven by mounting evidence of environmental persistence, dietary exposure, bioaccumulation and links to health concerns.
While drinking water has captured much of the public’s attention, diet can be an equal or larger contributor to overall exposure, an insight with major implications for consumers, food brands, retailers and testing laboratories.
How does PFAS get onto our plates?
PFAS enter the food system through interlocking pathways. The first route is through environmental contamination. PFAS released from industrial sites, firefighting foams and consumer product waste percolate into groundwater, rivers, and soils.
Crops irrigated with PFAS‑affected water can absorb these chemicals; livestock ingest them through contaminated feed, silage and pasture; and fish and shellfish bioaccumulate PFAS in impacted waterways. Each route adds a new layer of dietary exposure.
A second route is migration from food contact materials and processing. Historically, grease‑proof paper and paperboard contained certain PFAS that transferred to food during storage, handling or heating. PFAS in detergents and process chemicals used in food production may also serve as contamination sources to the unsuspecting producer.
Finally, atmospheric deposition is another route: PFAS emitted during manufacturing or after consumption can settle onto soil and crops or enter surface waters, extending contamination even where direct industrial use is limited. The outcome is an ecosystem where PFAS readily cross from manufacturing and consumer use into the food supply.
Diet matters
A persistent misconception is that PFAS exposure is primarily a drinking water issue. Yet dietary intake can be a major contributor, and the mix of foods people eat drives large differences in total exposure.
Local dietary habits (for example, regional fish like walleye) and frequently eaten staples (such as butter and olive oil) can disproportionately influence intake by the accumulation method and the environment. In other words, consumption volume can rival concentration when it comes to risk relevance.1
The regulatory tide is rising
Regulatory momentum is unmistakable, though approaches vary by region. In the US, FDA actions on PFAS in grease‑proof paper and paperboard have shifted the packaging landscape and raised expectations for industry monitoring and verification. In 2024, it was announced that grease proofing uses of several PFAS in paper and paperboard are no longer sold into the market; state‑level actions and retailer policies add further complexity.
In Europe, a sweeping PFAS restriction proposal under Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) aims to limit PFAS across packaging and food contact applications, reflecting heightened concern about migration risks. In 2025, NSF issued a guideline on nonfood compounds and food equipment in NSF 537.2
Additionally, the EU 2023/915 currently restricts four PFAS in meat, offal, fish, and eggs. However, a far-reaching proposal seeks to restrict a wider range of PFAS – potentially the most extensive chemical phase-out in EU history – a clear signal that regulators view PFAS as a systemic exposure challenge.
If implemented, this would heighten testing and compliance demands across packaging, processing and raw materials in an attempt to limit suspected health impacts from long-term exposure to the chemicals.
In China, evolving PFAS regulatory standards for food are becoming increasingly influential for manufacturers and exporters, as compliance with tightening Chinese requirements is essential for maintaining market access.
For global brands and exporters, the patchwork matters: products destined for multiple markets may face differing target lists, limits and method expectations, increasing the stakes for harmonized internal standards and lab readiness. Best practice, in this case, is to cover as many variables as possible in the knowledge expansion is the most likely regulatory trend.3
Why testing is hard and how labs are responding
PFAS analysis in food is challenging for three reasons:
- Ubiquity and contamination control: PFAS are everywhere, from lab air to sample vials, so preventing false positives requires stringent contamination control, PFAS‑clean consumables where possible, and meticulous blanks and quality control (QC) checks.
- Matrix diversity: From high‑fat dairy and meats to complex seafood and plant matrices, sample extraction and cleanup must be tailored to achieve low limits of quantitation while maintaining recovery and precision.
- Evolving analyte lists: As regulators refine target compounds, labs need methods flexible enough to adapt without sacrificing accuracy, especially when new PFAS analytes become relevant.
Regulatory and public‑health agencies continue to evolve methods to meet these demands. The EURL POPs Guidance Document, for example, provides detailed LC/MS/MS methodologies for PFAS determination across food categories, outlining analytical standards, contamination‑control practices, and method‑validation requirements.4
On the industry side, suppliers are investing in end‑to‑end workflows that emphasize:
- Sample prep innovation to reduce matrix effects and achieve part‑per‑trillion sensitivity
- Automation to lower manual error and improve reproducibility for high‑throughput screens
- Data interrogation and reporting tools to make results defensible to auditors, customers and regulators
Implications for food brands
For food brands, importers and retailers, PFAS is now a hot topic with tangible business risk. Failure to anticipate regulatory changes or validate supplier claims can create bottlenecks at ports, trigger product holds or recalls and erode consumer trust. Proactive programs built on credible testing are rapidly becoming table stakes.
What a pragmatic roadmap looks like:
- Map exposure risk by category and geography: Use intake‑oriented thinking, not just occurrence, to prioritize matrices where consumption volumes are high (e.g., dairy fats, edible oils) alongside known high‑concentration categories (e.g., certain seafood).
- Standardise internal targets and methods: Where external limits diverge, adopt the strictest practical targets across sites to simplify compliance, and align with validated LC/MS/MS methods that demonstrate fitness‑for‑purpose in your matrices.
- Invest in contamination control: Validate PFAS‑minimized workflows, including vetted consumables, solvent checks and instrument hygiene protocols; document these controls to satisfy customer and regulatory audits.
- Leverage automation and analytics: Expand throughput and consistency with automated sample prep and integrate data tools that support rapid review, traceability and defensible reporting across multi‑site operations.
- Engage suppliers early: Require method details, Limit of Quantitation (LOQs), analyte lists and proficiency evidence from contract labs and co‑packers. Harmonise specs in contracts and supplier scorecards to reduce rework and delays as limits evolve.
Looking ahead: From reactive testing to exposure management
The direction is clear: PFAS oversight will broaden beyond a handful of legacy compounds toward more comprehensive controls encompassing ingredients, final products, contact materials and manufacturing environments.
Food companies are shifting from isolated, reactionary tests to exposure management: understanding where PFAS could enter products, which consumer segments are most at risk based on diet, and how to prevent, detect and document controls.
This approach reflects an essential truth: protecting public health and brand equity are now inseparable. As regulators tighten standards and consumers demand transparency, organisations that invest in robust PFAS strategies, rooted in sound science and traceable data, will be best positioned to maintain market access and trust.
Solutions for PFAS testing in Food
Ensure your food testing laboratory can achieve compliance simply and confidently.
The PFAS food start-up kits include specialised consumables and sample preparation supplies to minimise PFAS background to meet regulatory requirements.
To learn more or to contact an Agilent representative, visit PFAS Testing in Food, Beverages & Food Packaging | Agilent.
References
- PFAS Exposure Risk Dashboard. PFAS Exposure Risk home page.
- NSF. NSF 537 PFAS-Free Certification for Nonfood Compounds and Food Equipment Materials.
- Agilent Technologies. PFAS Food Legislation Overview.
- European Union Reference Laboratory for halogenated persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Feed and Food. Guidance document on PFAS analysis.