Plastic-free packaging faces several scientific and technical barriers. Plastic packaging accounts for more than 40% of global plastic waste. To end plastic pollution and decarbonize the economy, we must learn to do without it. Replacing it with bio-based and biodegradable alternatives faces several scientific and technical barriers, as these alternatives do not yet have all the required properties. However, sometimes contradictory consumer expectations are also at play: consumers will quickly get annoyed by an alternative packaging that is only degradable in an industrial composting facility, but will refuse to buy food with an opaque packaging - rather than transparent - that does not allow them to check the freshness before purchase. Every day, millions of trays, transparent films, and flexible sachets are thrown away after only a few hours or days of use. Petrochemical plastic has dominated our grocery shelves for the last century, but its reign must now come to an end, due to decarbonization imperatives and the need to fight plastic pollution. However, replacing this versatile and cheap material without sacrificing the freshness of our food is a real scientific and industrial challenge. Here is the current state of affairs. The environmental situation is alarming: the packaging sector accounts for nearly 40% of the plastic waste generated worldwide. Most of this packaging is single-use and ends up in incinerators, landfills, or, more seriously, in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. These plastics never truly disappear. They fragment into micro and nanoplastics that contaminate the food chain, soils, and water resources. Furthermore, the production of these synthetic polymers relies on the extraction of fossil fuels, directly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Faced with this crisis, the public authorities have taken over from the scientific warnings. In France, the Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy (Agec) law imposes a gradual phasing out of disposable plastic by 2040, with strict milestones concerning the reduction of packaging, reuse, and the ban on certain formats, such as the over-packaging of many fruits and vegetables. At the European level, the revision of the regulation on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR, for Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation) sets binding targets for all member states: net reduction of the total volume of packaging waste, obligation to include minimum recycled material rates in new packaging, targeted ban on certain single-use plastic packaging in catering and retail, or harmonization of recyclability criteria by 2030. This regulatory and environmental pressure forces food industry manufacturers and material science research to urgently reinvent the protection of our food. In food science, a perishable product refers to any biological product that is subject to rapid and inevitable deterioration if strict storage conditions are not applied. Unlike so-called "stable" products (such as dry rice or canned goods) or "semi-perishable" products (such as potatoes or honey), perishable products have a limited shelf life, often measured in days or weeks. From a regulatory standpoint, they are identified by an expiry date (DLC), indicated by the wording "To be consumed until...". Exceeding this date presents a direct potential risk to human health. The vulnerability of perishable products is explained by three types of deterioration: biological, chemical and/or physical. There is first of all microbial degradation, which corresponds to the multiplication of pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli) or spoilage microorganisms (molds, yeasts). Food can also be subject to chemical and enzymatic reactions, such as the rancidity of lipids (particularly marked in meats and fatty fish) or the browning of cut fruits and vegetables. Finally, there can be physical alterations that degrade the appearance and texture of the food, such as wilting or softening. To neutralize these degradation factors, the packaging cannot be a simple container. It must act as a functional shield that protects the food from contamination by external microorganisms as well as exposure to external conditions (drying, humidity, oxygen). If one wishes to replace plastic for the preservation of these foods, the new materials must necessarily meet several fundamental properties: control of gas and water transfers as well as mechanical, thermal, and sanitary requirements. To meet this demanding specification sheet, research is focusing on different families of bio-based, recyclable or biodegradable materials. However, the options are few and the technical limitations are too significant to make them viable industrial solutions at the present time. There is the possibility of using inorganic materials, such as glass, steel or aluminum. This solution already exists, with the advantage of presenting the properties required for the food industry and being infinitely recyclable (at least in theory), but these materials have a notable weight and therefore a strong carbon footprint, particularly related to transport. Then come the bio-based options, such as cellulose. This is the most common polymer in nature, it is the main component of the cell walls of plants. Cellulose has already been studied for packaging solutions such as coated cardboard or cellophane. It has the advantage of being a recyclable material, of natural origin and showing good rigidity. However, cellulose has disadvantages: it can only form opaque packaging, the proposed solutions are very sensitive to humidity and this material requires a chemical functionalization (use of solvents) to be used. Nanocellulose, in particular, composed of cellulose nanostructures, represents a functional micro-coating solution to coat paper or cardboard, which, in their pure form, are not resistant to water or fats. Other bio-based coating solutions are also being studied, such as proteins or vegetable waxes, in order to improve their water resistance. Other polymers from biotechnological production or the transformation of agro-resources, such as polylactic acid (PLA), derived from starch fermentation, or polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), naturally produced by certain bacteria, can also present an interesting solution for the packaging of perishable foods. They are considered as bio-based alternatives, as they are produced by microorganisms, although they need to be chemically modified to be used. They form transparent, thermoformable alternatives (one can make trays or glasses) and present a good gas barrier. However, they are often fragile and require an industrial treatment to be degraded (industrial compostability only). Finally, natural biopolymers, such as starch (from potatoes), alginate (from algae) or chitin (from the shells of crustaceans), have been studied. These biopolymers have the advantage of being very abundant and easily biodegradable, but they present a too weak barrier to moisture. We are currently working in the laboratory on an innovative solution based on chicory roots, whose main polymer is fructan. We are obtaining promising results in terms of resistance, but the material is not yet inert enough to be used in the preservation of perishable goods. Migration, that is, the transfer of molecules from the packaging to the food, is still too high. However, it is necessary to distinguish two notions often confused, although they are not equivalent: the bio-based character of the material and its biodegradability. In fact, some bioplastics are bio-based plastics, whose material comes from biomass (corn, sugarcane, vegetable oils) and not from oil, but are not necessarily biodegradable. Conversely, other bioplastics are biodegradable, that is, their material can decompose under the action of microorganisms. The most virtuous materials are those that are both bio-based and biodegradable. The manufacturer is ready to adopt more environmentally friendly solutions, as long as the proposed options are technically and economically viable. However, the adoption of these innovations does not depend only on their scientific performance, but also on their acceptability by the general public. However, consumers today express complex and sometimes paradoxical expectations. Indeed, citizens have become very wary of vague environmental claims. They demand guarantees about the end of life of packaging: a material labeled "compostable", but which requires an industrial composting plant at 60°C causes frustration if it ends up in the household bin. At the same time, a majority of consumers still want to see the freshness of meats or fish before purchase, which favors hybrid solutions or transparent bioplastics, at the expense of opaque paper. And this is one of the greatest challenges of the bio-based solutions currently being developed. The intention to purchase eco-friendly products is very present, but it meets two economic and practical realities: price sensitivity and the refusal of food waste. Thus, in an inflationary context, the cost increase linked to bio-based packaging should not be abruptly passed on to the final price of the food. In addition, the consumer is not willing to accept a reduction in the shelf life of their products under the pretext that the packaging is more virtuous. Indeed, the waste of a piece of meat has an environmental impact much greater than that of its packaging. Successfully transitioning to plastic-free alternatives therefore depends on a perfect match between the technical performance of the material, the respect of legislation, and the response to the daily habits of consumers. It is in this spirit that the promising research currently underway should continue.