Pet food packaging has a difficult job.

It has to contain fats and oils.

Keep oxygen and moisture under control.

Retain aroma.

Prevent grease migration.

Survive filling, palletization and transport.

Remain attractive on shelf.

And, increasingly, it has to do all of that using structures that regulators and recycling systems are more willing to accept.

Coveris is using PATS UK 2026 to demonstrate how it is responding.

The packaging group will show PFAS-free premade bags, recyclable mono-material films and paper-based structures aimed at dry pet food and treats, including MonoFlexFibre and the metallized MonoFlexBE range.

At first glance, the regulatory narrative appears straightforward.

PFAS restrictions have arrived.

PPWR is pushing packaging toward circularity.

Pet food companies therefore need PFAS-free, recyclable packaging.

The reality is more nuanced.

From August 12, 2026, the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation prohibits food-contact packaging from being placed on the EU market when PFAS concentrations meet or exceed defined limits, including 25 ppb for an individual targeted PFAS, 250 ppb for the sum of targeted PFAS and 50 ppm for total PFAS including polymeric PFAS.

But EU food law defines food as products intended for human consumption and explicitly excludes feed. The European Commission’s own 2026 PPWR guidance says “food-contact packaging” should be interpreted in line with the scope of EU food legislation.

That creates an important distinction for pet food.

PFAS-free pet food packaging may be commercially and environmentally desirable, but the new PPWR food-contact PFAS limits should not automatically be presented as a direct legal ban on ordinary pet-food packaging.

That difference matters because regulatory precision is becoming just as important as material innovation.

Pet food still has strong reasons to move away from PFAS

The regulatory nuance does not make PFAS irrelevant to the sector.

Far from it.

PFAS chemistry has historically been attractive in packaging precisely because of the properties pet food needs.

Grease resistance.

Oil resistance.

Water resistance.

Durability.

These characteristics can be particularly useful for paper-based packaging containing fatty products.

Research has also detected PFAS and PFAS precursors in pet-food packaging, demonstrating that the issue is not hypothetical. A peer-reviewed study examining 37 pet-food packages found measurable PFAS-related compounds in packaging samples, although the study was conducted in the United States rather than the EU.

The U.S. FDA has likewise specifically identified pet-food bags when describing the removal of grease-proofing PFAS from food-packaging uses in the American market.

So suppliers have several reasons to eliminate intentionally added PFAS even where a particular pet-food format does not fall directly within PPWR’s Article 5(5) food-contact provision.

Customer specifications can demand it.

Retailers can demand it.

Future regulation can evolve.

Waste-management rules can penalize it.

And using fewer persistent substances can simplify the environmental profile of the package itself.

Coveris is therefore addressing a real market direction.

The important thing is to describe the regulatory driver accurately.

UK EPR may create a more direct PFAS incentive for pet food packs

For UK pet-food brands, the more immediate connection may actually come through packaging EPR rather than EU food-contact law.

Under PackUK’s RAM 2027, large producers must assess the recyclability of household packaging supplied during 2027.

Packaging receives red, amber or green ratings according to whether it can move through existing collection, sorting, reprocessing and secondary-material applications at scale.

PFAS is one of the automatic-red criteria.

The official RAM 2027 guidance states that packaging must automatically receive a red rating if an item or component contains more than 1 ppm total PFAS, either individually or in aggregate.

A stricter 25 ppb threshold applies specifically to food packaging.

Household pet-food packaging can fall within UK packaging EPR even though pet food is legally feed rather than human food.

That means PFAS-free design can still have a direct commercial relevance for UK pet-food packaging.

Not because the EU Article 5(5) food-contact limit necessarily applies.

But because UK recyclability assessment can make PFAS-containing household packaging financially unattractive through a red rating.

That is a much more precise regulatory story.

PFAS removal solves only one part of the package

This is where Coveris’s portfolio becomes more interesting.

Removing PFAS is relatively easy to describe.

Replacing the function it performed is harder.

A pet-food bag can contain oils and fats that migrate through insufficient barriers.

Dry kibble can lose aroma.

Oxygen can accelerate oxidation.

Moisture can affect texture and product quality.

Packaging may remain in distribution or storage for months.

The new structure therefore has to reproduce enough of the barrier performance of the incumbent package without introducing a different recycling problem.

This is why the shift should not be understood simply as:

PFAS out.

It is:

PFAS out while grease, oxygen, moisture, sealing and mechanical performance remain in.

That is a much harder materials challenge.

Metallization illustrates the trade-off clearly

Coveris’s MonoFlexBE is a good example.

The company describes the structure as a PE mono-material packaging system designed to replace more complex multilayer structures.

A newer version adds a metallized inner layer to improve protection against oxygen and moisture while retaining a metallic appearance.

Coveris says the resulting structure remains fully recyclable within the intended PE recycling route.

That combination sounds attractive.

High barrier.

Mono-material.

Premium appearance.

Recyclability.

But these claims need to be understood at the level of the complete structure.

“Mono-material” does not mean literally every molecule in the package is polyethylene.

Flexible packaging can include:

inks,

adhesives,

barrier layers,

coatings,

metallization,

closures

and seal systems.

The important question is whether those additional components remain within the compatibility thresholds of the relevant recycling methodology.

That distinction is particularly important for metallized flexible packaging.

Different European design-for-recycling methodologies can treat metallization differently depending on polymer, thickness and configuration.

So the useful claim is not that “metallic packaging is recyclable.”

It is that a specific metallized PE structure has been engineered to remain compatible with its intended PE recycling pathway, subject to the applicable assessment methodology.

That is a much more defensible statement.

PPWR will eventually make those distinctions unavoidable

PPWR’s recyclability provisions move in stages.

The regulation now applies generally across the EU, but not every future requirement began on August 12, 2026.

From 2030, packaging will have to comply with EU design-for-recycling criteria and receive a qualifying recyclability performance grade.

From 2035, “recycled at scale” performance becomes part of the assessment.

And from 2038, packaging will need to achieve at least grade B to remain on the market under the regulation’s timetable.

This is why phrases such as “PPWR-compliant packaging” need care in 2026.

A structure can be designed in anticipation of PPWR.

It can align with current industry recyclability guidelines.

It can reduce difficult materials.

But some of the harmonized EU design-for-recycling criteria that will determine formal future compliance are still part of an implementation pathway.

A supplier can therefore credibly say it is developing for PPWR requirements.

Claiming permanent compliance with every future criterion is harder.

Paper faces the same problem from the opposite direction

Coveris is also offering MonoFlex Fibre.

The range uses paper as its dominant structure and includes both single-layer functional papers and multilayer paper-dominant constructions.

Coveris says the products are designed for recycling in the existing paper stream and can incorporate barrier and sealing properties for dry foods, pet food and other applications.

That creates another interesting path away from conventional multilayer plastic.

But paper does not eliminate the barrier problem.

Pet food still contains fat.

Paper still absorbs moisture.

A paper pouch still needs to seal.

It may need aroma and oxygen resistance.

That usually means adding functionality.

The sustainability question therefore becomes:

How much non-fibre chemistry is required before the package stops behaving like ordinary paper in recycling?

The UK provides a useful illustration.

Under RAM 2027, paper or board containing more than 5% plastic by mass is assessed as a fibre-based composite rather than ordinary paper.

For paper structures, more than 10% non-paper content creates an amber reprocessing outcome, while more than 15% makes the structure red at the reprocessing stage.

The exact rules differ between jurisdictions.

The principle does not.

Paper content alone does not determine recyclability.

The complete formulation does.

Pet food may be one of the best stress tests for fibre packaging

This is precisely why the pet-food market is worth watching.

Replacing a relatively simple dry-food plastic bag with paper is one thing.

Replacing high-barrier pet-food packaging is harder.

The package may need to withstand:

grease,

fat migration,

aroma loss,

oxygen,

humidity,

abrasion from kibble,

large fill weights,

and repeated opening after purchase.

A lightweight snack wrapper might be disposed of immediately.

A 10 kg pet-food bag may be opened and closed for weeks.

That changes the demands placed on:

puncture resistance,

seal strength,

zippers,

barrier stability,

and mechanical durability.

The resulting packaging may look simple on shelf while containing considerable engineering underneath.

This is where Coveris’s statement that customers are asking how to make the transition “today” becomes meaningful.

The problem is no longer proving that recyclable packaging can be made.

The problem is matching established product protection at commercial scale.

Shelf life is part of the recycling conversation

This is a point that sustainability reporting sometimes misses.

A package does not become better simply because it is easier to recycle.

Pet food itself has an environmental footprint.

Protein production.

Ingredients.

Processing.

Drying or cooking.

Transportation.

Warehousing.

If inadequate packaging increases spoilage or oxidation, any material reduction can be offset by product waste.

This means barrier performance cannot be treated as an obstacle sustainability teams simply need to remove.

The correct design target is the minimum barrier required to maintain the necessary product life.

That may differ dramatically between:

dry kibble,

high-fat treats,

semi-moist foods,

wet products,

and veterinary diets.

The most recyclable structure is not necessarily the same for each.

The filling line is another hidden constraint

Coveris also emphasizes packing-line efficiency.

That deserves more attention.

Conventional PET/PE laminates have been optimized over many years.

They have predictable:

heat resistance,

seal windows,

stiffness,

coefficient of friction,

tension behaviour,

and puncture resistance.

Moving to PE mono-material structures changes some of those characteristics.

Coveris says its MonoFlexE family was developed specifically around machine constraints, with its flat-bottom bags intended to provide machinability comparable with conventional PET/PE bags and sealing temperatures in the 100°C to 130°C range.

Those are supplier claims and should be validated on each customer’s line.

But they address the correct commercial issue.

A recyclable pouch that requires the filler to cut line speed substantially is difficult to adopt.

A paper bag that creates sealing failures is difficult to adopt.

A material that requires frequent adjustment or produces more scrap can erase part of the environmental gain.

Packaging regulation is therefore increasingly becoming a machinery problem as well as a materials problem.

PFAS substitution can make the machinery challenge harder

There is another layer.

Functional chemistry often helps packaging run efficiently.

A coating can change friction.

A surface treatment can influence sealing.

Grease resistance can affect how the material behaves when exposed to product.

Replacing one chemistry with another may therefore change not only barrier performance but converting performance.

This is why successful PFAS elimination requires validation through the whole chain:

printing,

laminating,

bag conversion,

filling,

sealing,

storage,

distribution,

and disposal.

A laboratory grease-resistance test is not enough.

Nor is a recycling certificate by itself.

The package needs to work as an industrial system.

PFAS-free should also mean measurable, not merely intentional

Another distinction will become increasingly important.

“PFAS-free” can mean different things commercially.

No intentionally added PFAS?

Below a specified analytical detection threshold?

Below a regulatory concentration limit?

Those are not identical claims.

PPWR itself illustrates why.

The regulation does not simply say manufacturers must avoid intentionally adding PFAS.

It establishes quantitative concentration thresholds for food-contact packaging.

The Commission then published a recommended testing approach involving total fluorine screening, differentiation between organic and inorganic fluorine where needed, and targeted analysis.

That creates a higher evidentiary standard.

Packaging producers increasingly need documentation covering not only the base film or paper, but also:

inks,

adhesives,

coatings,

sealants,

and other components.

A PFAS-free product strategy will therefore become partly a supply-chain data exercise.

Recycled feedstock creates another complication

The Commission’s 2026 guidance also says there is no exception to the food-contact PFAS thresholds simply because packaging contains recycled material.

Again, that specific provision concerns food-contact packaging.

But the broader issue is relevant to packaging circularity.

Recycling can carry legacy chemistry forward.

If an industry wants high recycled content while simultaneously removing substances of concern, it has to understand what enters the recycling stream.

That creates a potential conflict.

Today’s packaging design determines tomorrow’s recycled feedstock quality.

A difficult chemical eliminated from new packaging does not instantly disappear from recycled material already circulating.

This strengthens the argument for removing problematic substances early even before every application is legally forced to do so.

UK and EU rules are now pulling in the same direction through different mechanisms

This is perhaps the most interesting regulatory lesson from Coveris’s PATS launch.

The EU and UK are no longer operating under identical packaging legislation after Brexit.

Yet both systems increasingly reward the same design direction.

Reduce unnecessary complexity.

Avoid problematic substances.

Improve recycling compatibility.

Provide evidence.

In the EU, PPWR establishes harmonized future design-for-recycling requirements and specific PFAS limits for food-contact packaging.

In the UK, pEPR uses the Recyclability Assessment Methodology to classify household packaging according to real collection, sorting, reprocessing and secondary-material conditions.

From RAM 2027, more than 1 ppm total PFAS makes applicable household packaging automatically red.

Different legal routes.

Similar commercial pressure.

This matters for companies supplying both markets.

They increasingly need packaging architectures capable of surviving multiple regulatory frameworks without multiplying SKUs unnecessarily.

One global pet-food pouch may become harder to maintain

International brands traditionally prefer standardized packaging.

One material structure.

One filling setup.

Different artwork for different markets.

Regulatory fragmentation complicates that model.

The same pet-food bag may have to satisfy:

UK recyclability criteria,

EU PPWR requirements,

national EPR rules,

food- or feed-related substance requirements,

retailer specifications,

and recycling systems that differ from country to country.

That means packaging teams need to understand not simply whether a package is “recyclable.”

They need to know:

where?

Under which methodology?

In which collection system?

At what scale?

With which components?

This is why broad environmental claims are becoming less useful.

Technical documentation is becoming more valuable.

Coveris’s two material routes show why no single solution will win

Coveris is effectively offering two very different routes.

One retains plastic but simplifies it toward recyclable PE mono-material structures.

The other increases fibre share through paper-based flexible packaging.

That is probably more realistic than trying to declare one material the future of pet-food packaging.

PE has significant advantages.

Low weight.

Good moisture resistance.

Durability.

Established flexible-packaging converting.

Paper has different strengths.

Renewable fibre.

Consumer familiarity.

A mature recycling stream in many markets.

Distinctive tactile positioning.

Neither solves every pet-food application.

A high-fat treat requiring strong barrier properties may have a different optimum from a dry low-fat biscuit.

A large heavy bag has different mechanical requirements from a 100-gram pouch.

The market is therefore likely to fragment by application rather than converge on one universal “sustainable pet-food package.”

The metallic inner layer is particularly interesting because premium design is not disappearing

Sustainability regulation is not removing branding.

Pet-food aisles have become increasingly premium.

Color.

Photography.

Matte finishes.

Metallic effects.

Resealable closures.

Shelf presence still matters.

Coveris’s metallized MonoFlexBE attempts to retain that visual differentiation while moving toward a mono-PE architecture.

That matters commercially.

Brands are much more likely to migrate away from difficult structures if the replacement does not force them to abandon the visual language they have built.

The circularity transition therefore cannot be treated solely as an engineering exercise.

It also has to preserve enough marketing functionality for the package to sell the product.

The real compliance question is moving from material to evidence

This may ultimately be the biggest change.

A decade ago, a supplier could describe a pack as:

lighter,

recyclable,

paper-based,

or environmentally friendly.

Increasingly, those statements need supporting evidence.

What percentage is paper?

What percentage is plastic?

Which recycling stream accepts it?

Which protocol was used?

What barrier layer is present?

What is the PFAS test result?

Does the full finished package comply, including inks and adhesives?

Has the material been tested at the customer’s filling speed?

Can the claimed shelf life be demonstrated?

These questions turn sustainable packaging from a marketing category into an engineering and compliance discipline.

That is where Coveris’s PATS launch fits into the larger market.

The company is not simply showing new bags.

It is responding to a packaging environment where a bag increasingly has to satisfy the product, machine, recycler and regulator simultaneously.

But the PFAS story should be reported accurately

That accuracy is particularly important now.

PPWR’s Article 5(5) PFAS restriction is already in effect.

That is significant.

But describing it as though it automatically bans PFAS in all pet-food packaging risks overstating the legal scope.

EU food law explicitly distinguishes food from feed.

The UK’s RAM system creates a separate and potentially highly relevant PFAS incentive for household pet-food packaging.

And future EU recyclability rules create another pressure independently of PFAS.

Those distinctions actually make the industry story more interesting.

Pet-food packaging is not responding to one simple rule.

It is responding to several overlapping systems that increasingly reward the same outcome: fewer problematic substances, simpler structures, credible recyclability and enough barrier performance to protect the product.

The real test is whether the new pouch can do everything the old one did

That is where the transition will succeed or fail.

A new package can be PFAS-free.

It can be mono-material.

It can be designed for recycling.

It can use less material.

None of those achievements matters commercially if:

kibble goes stale,

oil migrates through the package,

seals fail,

the filling line slows,

or consumers dislike the result.

Pet food is therefore a particularly useful test of the packaging industry’s circular transition.

The incumbent structures became complicated for a reason.

They were designed to solve real protection problems.

The next generation has to remove unnecessary complexity without removing necessary functionality.

Coveris’s MonoFlex and MonoFlex Fibre portfolios show two possible routes.

The important question is no longer whether suppliers can manufacture a pouch with a stronger sustainability story.

It is whether they can prove the entire system works:

chemically, mechanically, commercially and at end of life.

That is the standard pet-food packaging is moving toward.

And it is considerably more demanding than simply writing “PFAS-free” or “recyclable” on a specification sheet.

Last Updated on 16/09/2026 by Jota Machinery