Updated: September 2026
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on Packaging and Packaging Waste, commonly known as the PPWR, has applied across the European Union since 12 August 2026.
The Regulation represents much more than an update to waste-management rules. It addresses packaging throughout its life cycle, including design, recyclability, recycled content, reuse, substances of concern, labelling and extended producer responsibility.
For food packaging, however, the PPWR is only part of the regulatory picture.
Materials and articles intended to come into contact with food are also governed by EU food-contact-material legislation, notably Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and, for plastic materials, Regulation (EU) No 10/2011.
An article can fall outside the PPWR definition of packaging and still be subject to food-contact-material legislation.
What does the EU actually consider to be “packaging”?
One of the first questions companies need to answer is surprisingly basic: Is the item actually packaging?
Under Article 3 of the PPWR, packaging broadly means an item intended to be used by an economic operator for the containment, protection, handling, delivery or presentation of products to another economic operator or an end user. However, intended use matters considerably.
Consider an empty food container. If a retailer sells an empty reusable food container to a consumer who intends to take it home and use it for storing food, that article is generally not packaging merely because it is capable of containing food.
The PPWR explains that cups, food containers, sandwich bags and similar articles capable of performing a packaging function should not be considered packaging when they are designed and intended to be sold empty by the final distributor. The situation changes when the same type of article is designed and intended to be filled at the point of sale. In that case, it can constitute “service packaging.”
For example, a takeaway container filled by a restaurant for a customer is packaging. An empty storage container sold as a household product normally is not.
But this is where the distinction between PPWR and food-contact legislation becomes important. The empty lunch box may not be “packaging” under the PPWR, yet it is clearly intended to come into contact with food. Food-contact-material requirements may therefore still apply.
“Not packaging” does not mean “not a food-contact material.”
Tea bags and coffee units show how disposal behaviour affects the definition
Tea bags provide an interesting example of how the PPWR approaches packaging differently from a purely functional definition.
Consumers typically dispose of tea bags, coffee bags and certain single-serve units together with their contents. The PPWR notes that this behaviour can lead to contamination of composting and recycling streams.
The Regulation therefore expressly includes certain permeable tea, coffee and other beverage bags, as well as relevant single-serve beverage units, within its packaging definition. This is an important reminder that packaging classification under the PPWR is not determined only by what an article physically looks like. Its function, intended use and end-of-life behaviour can all matter.
What is “primary production packaging”?
Another term that can easily cause confusion is primary production packaging.
It does not mean packaging that is manufactured during a “primary production” stage of a packaging factory. Under the PPWR, primary production packaging means packaging designed and intended for unprocessed products from primary production, as that concept is defined under EU food law.
The concept is particularly relevant to sectors such as agriculture. Recital 12 explains that primary-sector businesses such as farmers should not automatically become the PPWR “producer” simply because they use this kind of packaging. Instead, the framework is designed so that the economic operator making the relevant packaging available for the first time can bear the corresponding producer responsibility.
The practical lesson is important: manufacturer, supplier and producer are not interchangeable terms under the PPWR.
A paper converter producing packaging for another company’s products should therefore not simply describe itself as being engaged in “primary production.” Its exact PPWR role needs to be assessed according to the type of packaging, branding arrangements and how the packaging or packaged product is placed on the market.
PFAS: one of the clearest links between PPWR and food-contact safety
Chemical safety is becoming a central component of packaging compliance.
One of the most significant PPWR requirements already applicable in September 2026 concerns per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food-contact packaging.
From 12 August 2026, food-contact packaging may not be placed on the EU market if it contains PFAS at or above the limits specified in Article 5(5), unless another Union legal act already prohibits the relevant placing on the market.
- 25 ppb for an individually measured PFAS;
- 250 ppb for the sum of targeted PFAS;
- 50 ppm for PFAS including polymeric PFAS, subject to the detailed measurement rules in the Regulation.
This provision shows why packaging sustainability and chemical safety can no longer be treated as separate compliance topics. A material may appear attractive because it is recyclable, reusable or lightweight, but its chemical composition also matters.
BPA: closely related, but mainly regulated through food-contact-material law
Bisphenol A, or BPA, provides another example of the overlap.
BPA has historically been used in certain food-contact applications, including epoxy-based coatings used in metal packaging and some plastic materials. Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 introduced a broad prohibition on the use of BPA in the manufacture of food-contact materials and articles within its scope and on the placing on the Union market of such materials manufactured using BPA, subject to specified derogations and transitional provisions.
For many affected single-use and repeat-use final food-contact articles, the general transitional deadline for first placing on the market expired on 20 July 2026. Longer transitional arrangements exist for certain applications.
This is why it is inaccurate to describe BPA simply as a new PPWR prohibition. Instead, BPA illustrates the wider regulatory system surrounding food packaging: the PPWR regulates the sustainability and packaging dimension, while dedicated FCM legislation continues to regulate important chemical-safety aspects.
Reusable does not automatically mean sustainable
The PPWR strongly supports the transition toward more circular packaging systems, including reuse and refill. But there is an important environmental point that legislation alone cannot answer: When is reusable packaging actually better than single-use packaging?
A major review by Coelho and colleagues on the sustainability of reusable packaging concluded that reusable systems can offer important environmental benefits compared with single-use alternatives, but their performance depends heavily on system design.
- Return rates matter.
- Transport distances matter.
- The number of rotations matters.
- Cleaning energy and water consumption matter.
- For food applications, hygiene and product safety matter.
Therefore, simply switching from a disposable container to a thicker reusable container does not automatically create a sustainable packaging system. The entire loop has to work.
Reuse also creates a food-contact-material challenge
The sustainability discussion becomes particularly important when packaging repeatedly comes into contact with food. Repeated washing, heating, scratching and mechanical use can cause material deterioration.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/351 amended the EU rules for plastic food-contact materials specifically to address repeated-use products. For plastic food-contact articles intended for repeated use, their composition and design must ensure that migration of constituents into food does not increase during subsequent use cycles when the article is used according to its intended-use instructions.
Manufacturers or other responsible operators must also provide information intended to slow deterioration, explain observable changes that can indicate deterioration, and warn where damage or foreseeable misuse could increase migration or otherwise make the product unsuitable for continued food contact.
How many times can a package be environmentally beneficial to reuse, and for how many cycles can it remain demonstrably safe?
Those two numbers are not necessarily identical. Circularity therefore cannot come at the expense of consumer safety.
The EU is already studying this intersection
The connection between sustainability and food-contact-material legislation is not merely theoretical.
In February 2026, an EU-commissioned study specifically examined sustainability in the context of food contact materials and how sustainability considerations might be integrated into future FCM legislation without compromising food safety, food security or the role of packaging in reducing food waste.
This points toward a more integrated regulatory approach. Future packaging decisions are increasingly likely to require companies to consider simultaneously material efficiency, recyclability, recycled content, reuse, chemical safety, food-contact migration, hygiene, food preservation and end-of-life performance.
31 December 2026 is another date worth watching
One PPWR deadline still ahead at the time of writing is 31 December 2026.
By that date, the European Commission, assisted by the European Chemicals Agency, is required to prepare a report on the presence of substances of concern in packaging and packaging components. The report is intended to examine, among other things, the extent to which these substances negatively affect the reuse and recycling of materials or chemical safety.
This is potentially significant for packaging manufacturers and material suppliers. Substances that do not currently prevent a material from technically functioning as packaging may nevertheless become increasingly problematic if they interfere with recycling, accumulate in secondary raw materials, limit safe reuse or present chemical-safety concerns.
Reporting and documentation will become part of everyday packaging compliance
It is tempting to think of PPWR compliance simply as selecting a recyclable material or changing a packaging design. In practice, documentation and reliable data will be just as important as the physical package itself.
Manufacturers are responsible for conformity assessment under the PPWR, while suppliers are expected to provide the information and documentation necessary for manufacturers to demonstrate conformity. Member States also have reporting obligations under the Regulation and may require relevant data from economic operators.
For packaging companies, this suggests a practical direction: start building systems capable of connecting packaging specifications with material composition, supplier information, food-contact status, substances of concern, recyclability information, reuse performance and market data.
The bigger picture: safe, circular and functional at the same time
The PPWR changes the way companies need to think about packaging. The traditional question was often: Does the package protect the product? That remains important—but it is no longer enough.
For food packaging in particular, companies increasingly need to answer several questions at the same time: Is it legally packaging? Is it safe for food contact? Does it contain restricted substances? Can it be recycled? Can it be reused safely? Does reuse actually reduce environmental impacts? And can the company demonstrate all of this with reliable documentation?
The relationship between the PPWR, food-contact-material law and reusable-packaging research therefore becomes much clearer. The PPWR pushes packaging toward a circular economy. Food-contact-material law establishes boundaries necessary to protect consumers. Life-cycle and reuse research helps determine whether a theoretically circular solution actually produces an environmental benefit in practice.
Circular packaging is not simply packaging that can be reused or recycled. It is packaging that can perform its function safely, repeatedly where appropriate, and with demonstrable environmental value across its life cycle.
References and Further Reading
- European Parliament and Council (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste. Official Journal of the European Union. EUR-Lex.
- European Parliament and Council (2004). Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Official Journal of the European Union.
- European Commission (2011). Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food.
- European Commission (2025). Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/351 amending Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and related legislation on plastic food-contact materials. EUR-Lex.
- European Commission (2024). Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 on BPA and other bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives in certain food-contact materials. EUR-Lex.
- European Commission – EU Agri-food Platform (2025). Food Contact Materials. Published 27 March 2025. EU Agri-food Platform.
- European Commission / European Health and Digital Executive Agency (2026). Study on sustainability in the context of food contact materials (FCM) in view of a possible revision of the FCM legislation. Published 6 February 2026. EU Agri-food Platform.
- Coelho, P.M., Corona, B., ten Klooster, R. & Worrell, E. (2020). Sustainability of reusable packaging – Current situation and trends. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X, 6, 100037. ScienceDirect. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037.
Disclaimer
This article reflects my personal overview and interpretation of the EU regulatory framework based on the sources available at the time of writing in September 2026.
It is intended for general information, learning and discussion only. The interpretation may be incomplete, oversimplified or incorrect, particularly because EU packaging and food-contact-material requirements are complex, evolving and highly dependent on the specific product, material, intended use, supply chain and role of the economic operator.
This article therefore does not constitute legal, regulatory or compliance advice, and it should not be relied upon as a substitute for reviewing the applicable legislation, official guidance or obtaining professional advice for a specific case.
I welcome comments, corrections, alternative interpretations and practical examples from regulators, industry professionals, researchers, packaging specialists and other interested parties. Constructive discussion is very welcome, especially where it can help clarify difficult provisions, identify relevant sources or support a deeper understanding of how the PPWR, food-contact-material legislation and sustainability requirements interact in practice.
Where useful, I may update or expand this article as new guidance, implementing acts, research or practical experience becomes available.