What's happening
This bill prohibits the use of intentionally added PFAS chemicals in food packaging if safer alternatives are available, requiring assessments and compliance certification.
Why it matters
Targets "forever chemicals" in food packaging. The bill addresses perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are linked to health concerns like cancer and hormone disruption, aiming to reduce consumers’ exposure through packaging that touches food.
Connects regulation to real-world alternatives. The prohibition on PFAS use only takes effect when the state determines that safer, affordable, and effective alternatives are available—meaning the law balances public health with industry feasibility and product performance.
Mandates ongoing scientific review. If alternatives to PFAS are not initially available, the state must annually reassess and report on progress, ensuring continued efforts to find safer solutions rather than a one-time study.
Creates accountability and transparency. Manufacturers must certify compliance with these rules, and update certifications if products are reformulated, providing a paper trail for regulators and buyers to ensure safer packaging is actually being used.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Ban PFAS in Food Packaging
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
1 Co-sponsor
History
- Referred to environmental conservation
Full text
3 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
8576
IN SENATE
May 10, 2018
Introduced by Sen. HOYLMAN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Environmental Conservation
AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in food packaging
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision 2 of section 37-0203 of the environmental conservation law, as added by chapter 286 of the laws of 1990, is amended and three new subdivisions 5, 6 and 7 are added to read as follows:
2. "Manufacturer" shall mean a person, firm, association, partnership, organization, joint venture or corporation, who or which makes containers to be used to package products.
5. "Food package" means a package or packaging component that is intended for direct food contact and is comprised, in substantial part, of paper, paperboard, or other materials originally derived from plant fibers.
6. "Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances" or "PFAS chemicals" means, for the purposes of food packaging, a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
7. "Safer alternative" means an alternative substance or chemical, demonstrated by an alternatives assessment, that meets improved hazard and exposure considerations and can be practicably and economically substituted for the original chemical.
§ 2. Sections 37-0209, 37-0211 and 37-0213 of the environmental conservation law are renumbered sections 37-0211, 37-0213 and 37-0215.
§ 3. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a new section 37-0209 to read as follows: § 37-0209. Prohibition on the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
chemicals in food packaging.
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, no person may manufacture, knowingly sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale, or distribute for use in this state food packaging to which perfluoroalkyl and poly-
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD15589-01-8
S. 8576 2
fluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals have been intentionally added in any amount.
2. (a) The department shall conduct a study to determine whether there are available safer alternatives to food packaging to which PFAS chemicals have been intentionally added. To determine whether safer alternatives to food packaging containing PFAS chemicals exist, the department shall conduct assessments of various available alternatives that:
(i) evaluate less toxic chemicals and nonchemical alternatives to replace the use of a PFAS chemical;
(ii) follow the guidelines for alternatives assessments issued by the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse; and
(iii) include, at a minimum, an evaluation of chemical hazards, exposure, performance, cost, and availability of such alternatives.
(b) In order to determine that one or more safer alternatives to the use of PFAS chemicals are available, the department must conclude that the safer alternatives to PFAS chemicals:
(1) are readily available in sufficient quantity and at a comparable cost to PFAS chemicals; and
(2) perform as well as or better than PFAS chemicals in a specific food packaging application.
(c) If the department determines that a safer alternative to the PFAS chemicals is another chemical, such chemical must have previously been approved for food contact by the United States food and drug administration, such as through the issuance of a determination that the chemical has a reasonable certainty of causing no harm.
3. By January first, two thousand twenty, the department shall publish on its website its findings on whether a safer alternative to PFAS chemicals in specific applications of food packaging are available for each assessed application and shall submit a report with the department's findings, including feedback from peer review of the department's alternatives assessment, if any, to the governor and to the legislature.
4. (a) If the department determines that a safer alternative is available for use in a particular category of food packaging, the utilization of such safer alternative by manufacturers shall be required in accordance with the provisions of subdivision one of this section no later than two years after the date of the submission of the department's report to the governor and the legislature as required by subdivision three of this section.
(b) If the department determines that a safer alternative is not available for some or all categories of food packaging applications assessed by the department, the department shall annually review alternatives for such applications in accordance with the provision of subdivision two of this section and shall report its findings to the governor and the legislature on such alternatives as required by subdivision three of this section by January first of each successive year. If the department subsequently determines that a safer alternative is available for use in a particular category of food packaging, the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall apply to such packaging.
(c) The provisions of subdivision one of this section shall not apply to a particular category of food packaging until the department determines that a safer alternative is available for use with respect to such category and has reported its findings to the governor and the legislature in accordance with the provisions of this section.
§ 4. Subdivision 2 of section 37-0211 of the environmental conservation law, as added by chapter 286 of the laws of 1990, such section as renumbered by section two of this act, is amended to read as follows:
S. 8576 3
2. (a) No manufacturer or distributor of a product shall be held in violation of this title who can show that, in the purchase of a package or packaging component, he or she relied in good faith on the written assurance of the manufacturer of such packaging or packaging component that such packaging or packaging component met the requirements of this title. Such written assurance shall take the form of a certificate of compliance stating that a package or packaging component is in compliance with the requirements of this title, provided however, where compliance is achieved under an exemption provided in subdivision two or three of section 37-0207 of this title, the certificate shall state the specific basis upon which the exemption is claimed. The certificate of compliance shall be signed by an authorized official of the manufacturing or distributing company.
(b) With respect to the prohibition on the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in food packaging as provided in section 37-0209 of this title, a manufacturer shall develop a compliance certificate by the date of a prohibition taking effect under such section.
(c) If the manufacturer or supplier of the package or packaging component reformulates or creates a new package or packaging component, the manufacturer shall develop an amended or new certificate of compliance for the reformulated or new package or packaging component.
§ 5. This act shall take effect immediately. Effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized and directed to be made and completed on or before such effective date.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in food packaging
Summary of provisions
Section 1 of the bill amends section 37-0203 of the environmental conservation law by defining food package, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluo- roalkyl substances or PFAS chemicals, and safer alternatives.
Section 2 of the bill renumbers certain sections of the environmental conservation law.
Read the full memo (1,050 words)
Section 3 of the bill adds a new section to the environmental conserva- tion law that prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of food packages to which PFAS chemicals have been intentionally added, subject to the provisions of this section. The department is instructed to conduct a study to determine whether there are available safer alterna- tives to such food packaging, to include an evaluation of chemical hazards, exposure, performance, cost, and availability of alternatives. To be considered complete, the study must conclude that safer alterna- tives are readily available in sufficient quantity, at a comparable cost, and at a comparable performance level, and the alternatives must have previously been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If these conditions are met, the utilization of safer alternatives shall be required no later than two years after the submission of the depart- ment's report to the governor and the legislature, which must be completed by January 1, 2020. If such conditions are not met, the department shall annually review safer alternatives, and when such alternatives are identified they will be required to be used within two years after the findings.
Section 4 of the bill requires manufacturers to develop a compliance certificate after the prohibition on PFAS chemicals goes into effect, and requires manufacturers to reissue a compliance certificate if the packaging is reformulated.
Section 5 of the bill is the effective date.
Justification
The chemicals PFOA and PFOS have come under scrutiny in New York over the last several years due to water contamination cases. While existing federal and state efforts to regulate PFOA and PFOS are critical, there is a troubling gap in these efforts. PFOA and PFOS are part of a class of man-made chemicals called PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals. Regulations on PFOA and PFOS do not address less common chem- icals in the PFAS family that could pose similar and unknown human health impacts, not to mention the potential for new PFAS chemicals to be developed in the future.
This bill ban PFAS chemicals in food packaging containers used in New York. Chemicals that are similar in chemical makeup to chemicals we know to be harmful should not be automatically approved for use, because it is likely they also lead to harmful health impacts. Rather, we should utilize a precautionary principle and prohibit the use of all PFAS chem- icals in firefighting foam.
New York's recent water contamination cases have brought public atten- tion to the harms of PFOA and PFOS. In Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh, PFOA was used in local factories to manufacture Teflon (non-stick surfaces) and waste product including the chemical entered the local water supply. In Newburgh and Suffolk County, PFOS was used in fire- fighting foam that seeped into the groundwater through firefighting and training activities. In these communities, residents have demonstrated high levels of these chemicals in their blood, and have experienced health impacts including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and birth defects, which studies have linked to these chemi- cals.
The attention to PFOA and PFOS has led to some recent federal and state regulatory action. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first issued provisional health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in 2009, and followed up with lifetime health advisories in 2016. However, it has not established national drinking water standards. Under the provisions of the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 New York State budget, New York's Drinking Water Council is undergoing a review of chemicals including PFOA and PFOS with the stated goal of setting strong enforceable limits on the chemicals. In April 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued an emergency rule that added PFOA-acid, PFOA-salt, PFOS-acid, and PFOS-salt to the state's list of hazardous substances, with particular attention to their use in class B firefighting foams. Finally, over the last dozen years, many companies agreed to voluntarily phase out their use of PFOA and PFOS, though their use continues in limited forms today.
The case of Wilmington, North Carolina offers a case in point about the need for stronger action on chemicals in the broader PFAS family. There, a chemical in the PFAS family called GenX was found in the water supply as a result of contamination from a local plant (Chemours, an offshoot of DuPont) that manufactured the chemical. According to DuPont, GenX was developed as a safer alternative to PFOA, which it had phased out due to environmental health concerns. However, studies submitted to the U.S. EPA by DuPont showed that GenX caused tumors and reproductive problems in lab animals. Residents and local officials are rightly alarmed.
Food packaging is a key place to look for PFAS chemicals, as they often include non-stick components to repel grease. PFAS chemicals in food packaging can enter a human's bloodstream by leaching into food that is consumed, as well as find its way into the environment through disposal.
A study published in February 2017 (Silent Spring Institute et. al., Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 2017, 4 (3), pp 105-111) looked at 400 samples of food packaging from fast food restaurants in the United States. It found that PFAS chemicals were found in 46% of food contact papers and 20% of paperboard samples, including a breakdown of 56% of dessert and bread wrappers, 38% of sandwich and burger wrappers, and 20% of paperboard.
This bill would ban the entire class of PFAS chemicals from food packag- ing containers used in New York. The prohibition will not go into effect until the Department of Environmental Conservation conducts a study analyzing safer and cost-comparable alternatives. Washington State signed similar legislation into law in April 2018.
In order to protect the health and safety of New Yorkers, we must take an aggressive approach by prohibiting the use of all PFAS chemicals in food packages.
Legislative history
New bill.
Effective date
This act shall take effect immediately.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.