The legislative clock for the packaging and food industries is ticking ever faster. What only a few years ago was considered the domain of laboratory analyses is now becoming the foundation of business and operational security. The new PPWR regulations require the adoption of a strategy without which it is difficult to imagine the stable placement of products on the unified EU market.
On 12 August 2026, new restrictive environmental requirements introduced by the PPWR will come into force, covering the entire life cycle of all types of packaging and the waste generated from them. The regulations establish a comprehensive framework for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), mechanisms for preventing packaging waste generation, as well as precise guidelines for the separate collection, processing, and recycling of such waste. They also contain an inconspicuous general clause that covers, among other things, microplastics.
What does the law consider to be microplastic?
The foundation of this concern is Entry 78 of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 – the so-called REACH Regulation – which is already in force. This provision introduced into the legal framework the concept of solid synthetic polymers, commonly known as microplastics, and set an ambitious objective for the market: the elimination of intentionally added solid polymer particles.
The definition of microplastic covers solid synthetic polymers (therefore liquid polymers are outside the scope of the definition), insoluble materials with a size of ≤ 5 mm (particles, granules, powders, etc.), and fibres up to 15 mm in length, provided they are very thin (the ratio of particle length to diameter is > 3). The definition applies where the synthetic polymer constitutes at least 1% of the mass of the particle concerned. Furthermore, if the polymer forms only a layer on a particle (e.g. a coating), the entire particle is treated as microplastic.
It is worth emphasizing that not every polymer is prohibited. The legislator has provided important exemptions for substances which, despite their structure, do not exhibit a negative environmental impact in the form of microparticles. Excluded from the definition are natural polymers that have not been chemically modified (e.g. cellulose, starch, chitin), biodegradable polymers (which decompose in accordance with the rigorous tests specified in Appendix 15 to the REACH Regulation), soluble polymers (in accordance with Appendix 16 to the REACH Regulation), and polymers that are not organic (i.e. contain no carbon atoms in their structure).
For food manufacturers, the key issue is not the wording of the prohibition itself but a precise understanding of its boundaries. For the remaining polymers, the most important distinction remains the division between mixtures and articles, supplemented by a system of so-called conditional exemptions. Point 5 of Entry 78 of REACH contains a catalogue of situations in which microplastics—although still considered microplastics—may legally remain on the market. First, the prohibition does not apply to substances separated through technical means (point 5(a)). Second—and crucially for printing—the law recognizes situations where the physical properties of microparticles are permanently altered, for example through the curing of ink (point 5(b)). Finally, particles permanently incorporated into a solid matrix are exempted (point 5(c)), allowing finished bottles or films to be treated as safe “articles”.
Classic examples include inks, varnishes, and adhesives. While in a container they may contain microplastics, once applied to a film and cured, they form a uniform coating and lose their particulate form. As a result, finished food-contact materials such as PET bottles, trays, or printed laminates are treated by REACH as “articles”. From a legislative perspective, this means that the polymers forming their structure are permanently bound, creating a kind of “safe harbour” for food manufacturers.
The problem arises one level lower in the supply chain. Before they are applied to packaging, inks, varnishes, and adhesives are classified as mixtures. Particular attention should be paid here to the exemption concerning use in industrial installations. European legislators allow the use of such substances where the risk of uncontrolled release into the environment is minimized through technical measures or where the substance is permanently contained by technical means throughout its final use (point 6). However, if they contain microplastics, their use in industrial processes is permitted only on condition that stringent reporting obligations towards the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) are fulfilled.
This is precisely where the responsibility of the food manufacturer arises. Although the food manufacturer does not itself place microplastics on the market, its operational security depends on the reliability of its packaging suppliers. Failure by a printing company or laminate manufacturer to report emissions may result in supply chain disruptions or challenges to the legality of the manufacturing process of the entire component. Therefore, the need for mutual communication among the various entities within the value chain must be emphasized. A lack of knowledge regarding the microplastic reporting status of a subcontractor constitutes a risk that cannot be unequivocally mitigated merely by including a general “REACH and PPWR compliance” clause in a contract.
Food additives
Attention should also be paid to the specific situation of food additives. Under point 4(b)(iii) of the aforementioned regulation, additives falling within the scope of Regulation 1333/2008 benefit from an exemption from the sales prohibition. However, this is a conditional exemption.
From 17 October 2026, a manufacturer of a food additive containing microplastics will be required to provide detailed Instructions for Safe Use and Disposal (IFUD), and from 17 October 2025 must report annually the mass of the substance placed on the market.
For food manufacturers and quality departments, this means the need to verify whether raw material documentation contains these specific legally required elements.
PPWR and REACH – synergy or contradiction?
Another element of this legal puzzle is Article 5 of the PPWR, which emphasizes the minimization of substances of concern and operates in synergy with the aforementioned REACH provisions. This article expressly prohibits the placing on the market of packaging containing substances that negatively affect recycling or safety, or, for example, packaging containing microplastics, which have already been preliminarily identified in the preamble of the regulation as a threat to human health.
Entry 78 of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 REACH does not cover, for example, natural (unmodified) polymers, nor polymers for which scientific evidence of biodegradability and water solubility has been established. However, do they meet the recyclability requirements of the PPWR? This is a task for R&D departments, which must reconcile these two legal regimes.
For entities placing food products on the market, the foundation remains the general obligation to ensure food safety and purity, together with the resulting legal liability. This creates a new reality in which packaging assessment does not end with functionality. Packaging must be viewed through the prism of physical durability, the so-called “wear and tear” factor. If a barrier coating or print layer, originally consisting of mixtures containing microplastics, flakes off or abrades into the product, the exemption arising from the article status collapses—precisely because of the synergy between all these regulations. In such a scenario, the issue is no longer merely a breach of environmental standards but, above all, a violation of general food law (Regulation 178/2002) with regard to physical contamination of food.
Where should risks be sought? Critical points in the supply chain
Mapping the presence of microplastics within a facility requires examining the production process from four different perspectives, each carrying a different set of legal risks:
Finished articles: Printed film, trays, or bottles are treated as articles, meaning there is no prohibition on placing them on the market. REACH-related risk is low here; however, food manufacturers should focus on their physical durability (the wear and tear aspect) to avoid particle migration into the product.
Packaging chemistry (inks, varnishes, adhesives): The situation here is more complex. As raw materials (mixtures), they may contain microplastics, but their use is permitted under the so-called derogation for industrial applications. The key obligation of a food manufacturer in this case is supplier auditing—there must be certainty that the supplier fulfils reporting obligations to ECHA and provides the required safe-use instructions.
Technical raw materials (masterbatches and additives): Similar to packaging chemistry, masterbatches used in plastic production are subject to process reporting obligations. At this point, declarations of compliance are of strategic importance—suppliers should be required to provide firm confirmation that these raw materials are being placed on the market in accordance with the new requirements of Entry 78 REACH.
Food additives: This is the area of highest and most direct risk. If colourants used in a facility are classified as microplastics, the food manufacturer becomes the entity directly responsible for possessing safe-use instructions and reporting to ECHA. Here, the exemption from the prohibition (arising from Regulation 1333/2008) is strictly conditional upon fulfilling these formal requirements.
Food safety – the overriding priority
Under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, no unsafe food may be placed on the market. The presence of polymer microparticles that could migrate unintentionally from packaging (for example, due to the flaking of printed layers) constitutes physical contamination. This synergy is reinforced by the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004, which state that food-contact materials must not transfer their constituents to food in quantities that could endanger human health, and Regulation (EC) No. 2023/2006, which imposes an obligation on manufacturers to maintain rigorous process controls to eliminate contamination risks at every stage.
The interaction of these regulations with the forthcoming PPWR creates a new reality in which packaging assessment does not end with functionality. Packaging must be viewed through the lens of physical durability, the so-called wear and tear factor. If a barrier coating undergoes mechanical degradation, the exemption arising from the permanent containment of the polymer (under point 5 of REACH) becomes irrelevant in light of the aforementioned standards, and the manufacturer may face violations of food safety requirements.
Recommendations for businesses
How, then, should these processes be managed so that the law becomes a tool supporting business rather than a barrier? The key lies in changing the approach to contracting and auditing. At AJ LAW Partners, we recommend that our clients introduce precise cooperation clauses into supplier agreements. It is becoming standard practice to require the provision of full chemical composition data or confirmation of microplastic reporting within as little as three days from a request. Such stringent deadlines do not stem from a lack of trust but from the requirements of Entry 78 of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation—inspection authorities will give a business only 30 days to provide a complete response. Without a rapid information pathway from suppliers, a food manufacturer remains vulnerable during inspections. The prompt delivery of up-to-date test results and detailed packaging specifications by suppliers will be essential.
In summary, regulations concerning microplastics signal that the era of general declarations has come to an end. Bearing in mind the golden principle of food safety and the fact that microplastics have already been identified in regulatory preambles as a potential health hazard, the market now requires an investigative approach to every element of packaging. Today, brand value is built not only on product taste but above all on evidence of its safety. In this new micro-reality, transparency and cooperation are the currency that should ensure peace of mind during inspections.
This article presents only selected aspects of the issues discussed. The scope of the topics covered is much broader and requires in-depth specialist analysis. The information contained herein is general and educational in nature—it does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion within the meaning of applicable laws. Every case requires an individual approach, taking into account the specifics of the particular situation, and this is precisely what we do at AJ LAW.
All recommendations, comments, and studies presented are protected by law and constitute the intellectual property of their author; they may not be copied or used in any manner contrary to law or their intended purpose.
To obtain binding advice tailored to your specific circumstances, it is always recommended to consult a professional advisor or lawyer.
AJ LAW Law Firm
office@ajlaw.pl
Edyta Oleszczuk-Romańska
Legal Counsel at AJ LAW Partners
e.oleszczuk-romanska@ajlaw.pl