To understand what brands and converters should know, we spoke with Senior Manager, Product Portfolio Kirsi Lahtela, who has extensive experience helping pet food manufacturers transition to fibre-based solutions.
As the food industry, including pet foods, moves away from PFAS-containing materials, packaging design is evolving with it. Barrier papers that do not use PFAS chemicals for grease protection behave differently from traditional fluorinated structures, but with the right design choices, they enable safe, recyclable and high-performing packaging.
Q: Why should food and pet food brands transition away from PFAS-containing packaging?
“For years, PFAS have been widely used in fibre-based packaging because they provide grease, oil and water resistance. The issue is that PFAS do not readily break down in nature — they persist in soil, water and air for decades. And we also know there are serious environmental and health concerns associated with them.
“This is why the momentum is shifting so strongly toward PFAS free alternatives across food packaging, and pet food is no exception. At UPM, our papers are PFAS-free, and we have never used PFAS chemicals in our papers. However, we still test for them to make sure we meet all restrictions. For our customers, moving away from PFAS is not only about compliance, it’s about doing the right thing for our loved ones and the environment.”
“At UPM, our papers are fully PFAS-free, and we have never used PFAS chemicals in our papers. However, we still test for them to make sure we meet all restrictions”.
Q: What changes when a brand switches to PFAS-free barrier papers?
“With PFAS-free solutions, the barrier sits only on the coated surface layer. In older fluorinated papers, the barrier was present throughout the whole fibre structure — so raw edges or complex folds were less of an issue.
“In PFAS-free papers, the barrier performs extremely well, but if grease reaches a raw paper edge, it can travel into the fibres and create a visible darkening. It’s a visual effect, not a functional failure — and it’s very easy to avoid with smart design.”
Q: What design considerations do converters and brands need to keep in mind?
“The most important step is protecting raw edges from direct contact with greasy contents. Minor adjustments — such as changing how a gusset is folded or how a closure is sealed — solve this completely.
“It’s also good practice to check whether the original packaging geometry is truly suited for paper. Many formats translate beautifully; a few benefit from small refinements.”
Q: Are there challenges when it comes to folding complexity or pack geometry?
“Like with any coated paper, very tight or complicated foldings can be demanding. In those cases, the coating or grease barrier might crack if the structure was originally engineered for plastics. That doesn’t mean the design won’t work — it simply means it should be reviewed with paper in mind.”
Q: And what if the format is really demanding? Are there solutions?
“Absolutely. This is where our development work becomes especially useful.
“If a pack requires extreme folding, high mechanical stress or extra barrier support, we can move to a laminated or thin extrusion-coated structure. These layers can be biodegradable or use very thin olefin coatings, depending on what the customer wants.
“These ultrathin supporting layers help stabilise the barrier, prevent cracking and keep the package looking clean and premium — without compromising recyclability potential. So even in challenging formats, PFAS-free solutions are entirely achievable.”
Kirsi concludes:
“There is always a viable path forward. And our UPM experts are here to guide you through design choices, test concepts with you and help build packaging that meets your goals for regulations, pet safety and recyclability.”
