This brief translates recurring sourcing and production questions into RFQ and approval checkpoints. Project decisions should use the final model specification, applicable standard and current supplier evidence.
PFAS is a broad chemical class. A credible sourcing decision starts with exact coating identity, intended use, migration evidence and market-specific rules.
Avoid two opposite mistakes
It is inaccurate to treat every fluorinated substance, every nonstick coating and every food-packaging policy as the same issue. It is also risky to accept a broad ‘safe’ or ‘PFAS-free’ statement without a definition and test basis. Procurement needs substance-level and use-specific evidence.
Start with coating identity
Ask for the coating system, supplier, layer structure, substrate, cure conditions and intended maximum use temperature. Define what a PFAS-free claim means in the contract: intentionally added PFAS, a named list, total organic fluorine or another measurable criterion. The claim should match the test method and reporting limit.
Understand the FDA context
The FDA announced that PFAS grease-proofing agents for paper and paperboard food packaging were no longer being sold in the US market and later determined related notifications were no longer effective. FDA separately describes limited authorized PFAS uses including certain nonstick applications. Therefore, the packaging phase-out should not be quoted as a universal ban on all cookware coatings.
Verify the finished system
Review food-contact compliance, migration or extraction evidence where applicable, adhesion and abrasion performance, cleaning instructions and damage criteria. Revalidate when the formulation, coating supplier, substrate or cure process changes.
Key takeaways
Quick checklist
Reviewing a nonstick claim?
Bring the target market, claim wording and coating documentation for a structured gap review.