Regulation on packaging and packaging waste: Food safety and food waste aspects

Information from the Presidency Exchange of views

as the proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste (PPWR) had elements related to food waste and food policy it was good to discuss it in this Council;
the two questions proposed to structure the debate were, what aspects should be considered to ensure food safety and hygiene standards as well as the functioning of the single market, while on the need for reducing food waste, which factors should be highlighted;
- how could reuse, refill and recycling be used as effective measures to reduce packaging waste and increase its circularity while ensuring food safety and hygiene standards;
- how would synergies with other pieces of legislation be handled.

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for the Environment, European Commission

citizens were concerned about the growing amount of packaging waste;
they expressed this very clearly at the Conference on the Future of Europe;
he emphasised that the amount of packaging waste increased by 20%;
- it reached close to 8 million tonnes in 2020;
he called for an end to the linear model of take, make and throw away;
- the PPWR aimed to tackle that issue;
it was the result of a long process of consultations;
- it was based on a detailed impact assessment;
he stated that the aim was to reduce waste by 5% by 2030 and further progress to reach a 15% reduction by 2040;
he highlighted that the impact assessment and consultations showed that the most efficient EU measures were to increase reuse and phasing out unnecessary packaging;
- this would impact the farming sector;
in the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F), the Commission (EC) showed that food packaging played a key role on the sustainability of food systems;
the EC committed to using innovative and sustainable packaging solutions, using environmentally friendly materials;
he was aware of the concerns raised by the agri-food sector by impacts on food safety, the value chain and the objective to reduce food waste;
he was ready to clarify some potential misunderstandings;
there was an important role for packaging to prevent damage and contamination;
- the food safety benefits of packaging were widely recognised such as for perishable products;
- safeguarding public health was a necessary condition not subject to any trade offs;
- the EC payed specific attention to avoid a trade off between packaging use and food waste on a case by case basis;
- there were needs for specific exemptions such as delicate items;
this was the approach taken on all measures;
- sound alternatives should be available;
- those solutions should be economically and environmentally viable;
- there would be specific exemptions provided where necessary;
PPWR would comply with existing legislation such as on food waste and food contact materials (FCM);
consumers would benefit and it would create financial savings estimated at over €45 billion per year;
- there would be derogations for certain enterprises such as micro-enterprises;
designs subject to geographical indications could be exempt from requirements on packaging minimisation;
there would be support for SMEs to cope with the new requirements through the innovation council;
he did not underestimate the challenges for companies;
those that heavily invested in the linear model would have challenges but those willing to invest would have opportunities;
evidence showed customers were willing to take their share.

the proposed regulation was a good basis for work;
the specificity of food products and the risk of deterioration and hygiene standards were important;
- therefore, there should be no risk of the degradation of quality or food waste;
the EU had to be aware of current marketing standards, this was why EU products were so attractive on the international market;
- those products should not be undermined by this proposal;
SMEs could have problems so it was important to pay attention to their needs to adapt;
the renew rules for producers should also apply to imported products.

this proposal would have a big impact on food waste in the circular economy and the competitiveness of food chains;
Portugal called for a focus on food safety;
- it was the most important aspect;
- food supply to everyone should be ensured;
- additional costs were also a concern, particularly for the poorest populations;
on the objectives and the impacts on the single market, there had to be clear rules on packaging and on labelling;
they called for the avoidance of any obstacles to the free movement of goods within the single market and internationally;
reducing packaging waste was important as it would reduce pollution but food safety had to be the main concern;
primary packaging in direct contact with food was important to ensure food remained of a high quality, particularly for milk and juices;
they called for the way fresh products were packaged to not make products more perishable;
Portugal called for a focus on subsidiarity and superfluous packaging waste that could be done away with easily;
on reuse, refill and recycling, these measures could make a significant contribution to reducing waste;
all packaging in direct contact with food should be done with concern for micro-biotic contamination;
- packaging should be appropriate for food stuff;
reuse, refill and recycling were important for the environment;
- water needed to be saved and industrial reuse could see a lot of water used which would be unsustainable;
food safety could not be undermined.

Denmark welcomed the proposal;
packaging was of the utmost importance to ensure a longer shelf life and reduce food waste;
they stated that it was important that the reduction in packaging does not create more food waste;
this was addressed in the proposal, specifically for fruits;
the requirements for reducing packaging needed clear guidelines;
Denmark called for food safety to be ensured;
it was important to have consistency between different pieces of legislation both for food safety and organic products;
the ban on single use plastic for less than 1.5kg could lead to unwanted consequences for the sale of organic fruit and vegetables;
Denmark called for the right balance.

packaging waste continued to increase and Ireland welcomed the goals in the proposal;
it was important not to loose sight of food safety or food waste;
packaging was linked to shelf life;
higher risk food, could need packaging with greater plastic content;
reuse, refill and recycling presented a greater issue for packing food of animal origin due to the micro-biological load;
- the environmental costs of cleaning had to be considered;
reuse and refill targets had to ensure that it did not jeopardise the resilience of food systems;
plastic packaging could be subject to multiple recycling events;
- Ireland called for EFSA to examine how this would impact the chemical properties of plastic;
changes in composition should not impact food safety;
vacuum packing and modified atmosphere packing were essential tools to prolong shelf life of fresh meat and reduce waste;
there had to be a balance to maintain food safety and reduce waste;
on food contact materials, there had to be consistency with the other pieces of legislation;
Ireland wanted a cascade approach with food packing and wrapping materials being the first use and then it should be recycled for other uses;
any proposals should not impact the export of food;
there should not be any additional costs for SME;
Ireland wanted a further consideration of the impact of the proposal on food safety and waste.

Spain agreed with the objectives of the proposal;
high quality recycling needed to be promoted and consumers needed good information;
- it could create new trade opportunities;
on the first question, traceability had to be guaranteed;
- efforts were made to have a more sustainable packaging model;
- in Spain there was a focus on the wholesale of fruit and vegetables, it was already dealt with at the national level;
- they did not want so called positive measures to lead to a deterioration in the physical attribute of products;
- Spain had its own law on reuse, and this should be taken account of;
on the second question, Spain agreed that there should be the elimination of certain types of packaging but the cost-benefit aspects had to be looked at.

they agreed that reducing packaging waste required more effort at the EU level;
waste packaging could be reduced by having shorter waste supply chains and using local products;
Lithuania called for sustainable and biodegradable food packaging to be promoted;
on FCM, food safety and consumer health had to be a priority;
when manufacturing and reusing packaging, it was important to ensure that harmful chemicals did not pass on to food;
this proposal covered a lot of policy areas and would impact business and society;
Lithuania called for all decisions to be made on a scientific basis and that the competitiveness of the food sector should not be undermined.

reducing waste, having more recycling and a circular economy were things Germany supported;
- food safety should not be undermined by this;
packaging could protect food from deterioration;
- this could also reduce food waste;
they stated that less packaging waste could lead to more food waste;
- it was still important to reduce packaging waste and different pieces of legislation should align;
reuse and recycling were not a contradiction;
- Germany stated that none of this undermined food safety;
there was a new recycling directive that would be a good approach here;
PET recycling legislation would lead to more recycling;
- further developments would be needed for other materials;
recycling targets would mean investments would be needed;
the EC had to take account of exemptions;
- Germany already had an effective return scheme and this should be taken account of.

Estonia was finalising its position but was in favour of the objectives;
on reducing excessive packaging, human safety also had to be taken into account;
any restrictions should not lead to more food waste;
Estonia called for a balance between reduction and food safety and waste;
they supported increasing the use of recycling material but the objectives had to be achievable;
- other legislation had to be taken into account such as that on FCM;
Member States (MS) should have more cooperation and EU level solutions for analysis would be helpful;
there might not be enough safe recycled plastic for use;
- consumers needed education on this;
on recycled plastic content, baby food should have the same level of caution as for medicinal products;
- at risks groups should be protected from the threats of recycled plastic;
on reuse and recycling, operators should take up new technologies, especially for cleaning;
Estonia emphasised the importance of food safety and it had to be taken into account in the proposal.

this proposal would have a significant impact on the food sector;
Italy agreed with the overall objectives;
they believed that the impact assessment was lacking in two aspects;
- the impact on the health and safety of food and the consumption of water and energy;
they did not agree with the basis that shifted the focus from recycling to reuse without taking account of the situation on the ground;
- Italy worked on the circular economy and had a rate of more than 70% for recycling;
- EU objectives were achieved nine years early;
- making this change from the EC was inconsistent;
packaging was often part of a companies marketing image;
- this was true of wine;
there was a risk on returns of exported products being penalised as it was difficult to recover;
there should not be a deposit system put in place without taking account of investments made to date;
they did not agree with the prohibition of single use plastics for certain food products;
- it was important in preventing food waste;
there had to be flexibility in the choice of instruments used to achieve the goals.

Bulgaria saw the food sector as an area with significant potential to reduce packaging waste;
the technical complexity of the proposal should be taken into account;
they wanted a balanced approach for the ambitions to ensure that future provisions would work;
the obligations of economic operators should be proportionate;
Bulgaria wanted to eliminate harmful substances and this should go hand in hand with traceability;
it was necessary to take into account the impact of harmful substances on human health and the environment;
recycling technologies should be used to make sure packaging was safe;
food hygiene and consumer health should not be damaged;
producers of packaging for food should have priority access to high quality material;
Bulgaria recognised the importance of synergies with current and future legislation.

they welcomed the proposal;
the differences between MS had to be taken into account;
Cyprus had high waste due to the tourist industry;
- there was not a large national production of waste;
- they imported for the most part;
on the first question, it was important to take account of the characteristic of food;
- resources should be protected to reduce waste;
the lifespan and quality of food had to taken into account;
there had to be common EU standards to ensure that food health and safety was protected;
on recycling, dangerous content should be avoided;
circularity had to be improved;
this directive had to be looked at in conjunction with the directive on single use plastics.

on the first question, given the technological, societal and economic development, it was necessary to revise existing legislation;
- work should take account of the entire lifecycle of packaging;
- this would help to harmonise existing EU legislation;
the objectives were appropriate;
on recycled content, any action had to have an in-depth analysis;
- objectives should be realistic, measurable and technically feasible;
food waste was a global problem;
- this wasted resources and generated waste;
using appropriate packaging could help to limit waste packaging;
- size of packaging was also important;
- innovative packaging should be supported;
on the second question, the safety of food should be assured when using recycled or reused packaging;
Poland called for the targets for minimum recycled content to be more realistic;
the availability and cost had to be taken into account;
chemical recycling had not been fully developed yet;
refilling systems would only need to be setup and should be postponed and given realistic targets.

Slovenia welcomed the proposal;
it was important to reduce packaging waste and to promote recycling;
they agreed that the EU needed to lower the demand for primary materials and the use of energy for packaging production;
- this would help to promote the circular economy, preserve the environment and achieve climate goals;
to lower emissions, the weight and size of packaging had to be reduced;
- they called for transport restrictions also;
the targets should not impact the functioning of the supply chain;
the proposals had to comply with FCM regulation;
the main purpose of packaging was to preserve the high quality and safety of food products;
it was crucial that reusable packaging did not pose a risk to human and animal health;
Slovenia was sceptical about the large number of secondary legislation acts that were now planned;
they were worried about increased administrative burden that could impact economic value.

Latvia supported the proposal;
on the first question, consumers were guaranteed with safety but the EC proposal would be a change for the sector;
ensuring a balance between reducing packaging and maintaining food safety was important;
food safety and hygiene were an uncompromising public health issues;
packaging policy could not lower or endanger food safety;
they called for a focus on the big polluters, the SMEs had to have exemptions for the reuse of packaging in order to have time to adapt;
Latvia had a packaging reduction scheme that worked well;
- national systems had to be able to continue;
on materials, everything would depend on the development of technology;
- there should not be unfounded limitations for materials;
- capacity for the EU to evaluate the safety of materials had to be increased;
if producers had to lower the expiry date of products this could create more food waste;
the impact assessment was not sufficient;
on the second question, food safety and hygiene were issues regulated by regulations;
- this had to be maintained;
rules on reuse and refill had to be balanced.

Hungary was committed to protecting the environment and reducing waste;
food systems should be sustainable;
ambitious objectives were justified in the field of recycling;
consumer safety, SME competitiveness and food waste could not be forgotten;
they agreed with the draft but the final text would have to accommodate a number of other aspects;
for recycled FCM, it had to be free of food safety risks;
a regulatory framework only existed for plastic materials from a food safety point of view;
- in the absence of legislation on safe recycling, the 2030 targets would only be possible at the risk of food safety;
consumer health had to be considered under all circumstances;
on FCM packaging, procedures had to be designed to incentivise their recycling into food packaging;
packaging also provided for the texture, taste and aroma to be provided;
smaller consumer friendly sizes could contribute to a reduction of food waste with proper design;
Hungary called for rules on FCM that differed from general rules on packaging.

Luxembourg wanted an ambitious reduction in packaging waste;
to ensure health and safety, certain criteria had to be respected;
packaging for fragile products or food of animal origin had to be looked at carefully;
products had to remain safe and it could also help to increase shelf life;
on reuse, it had to be properly cleaned to avoid contamination;
what was best for the environment and the health of consumers had to be thought about;
recycling had to be in line Regulation (EU) 2022/1616;
Luxembourg called for a look at down cycling;
it was important that the proposal and FCM should be aligned;
less packaging should be used but human health needed to be protected.

Czechia stated that food security was vital;
packaging played a major role;
some targets were very ambitious such as those on reuse;
feasible solutions had to be found;
on food security, the fact that suitable packaging could disturb food distribution and availability had to be taken into account;
negative impacts of food security and the resilience of food systems had to be avoided;
adopting a ban on some packaging was against the idea of food waste;
the EU worked on having high food security and health was important for Czechia;
the conditions for reuse should not impact the quality and hygiene of foodstuffs;
Czechia said the requirements should not distort supply chains or the export of agri foodstuffs;
- goals should be assessed and if needed revised based on scientific evidence;
- increasing costs would be reflected in food prices;
on recycling, side effects such as impurities had to be taken into account;
they could be the result of the recycling process;
on plastic packaging, there were already numerous goals;
- the period for implementation should be maintained before setting new goals;
there should be alignment with other pieces of legislation;
this had to be discussed with global partners.

Finland considered the reform important and they supported the overall objectives;
they called for legislation to be reformed carefully;
- an increase in administrative burden, food waste or supply should be avoided;
Finland found problems with the impact assessment on food waste and food safety;
- a broader assessment was needed;
reducing packaging should not lead to food waste or lower food safety;
the EC proposal on the ban on single use packaging for food under 1.5kg was problematic;
the overall impacts on the environment should be positive;
Finland called for the possibility to deviate from requirements when it was justified on the basis of an assessment of the environmental impacts;
- they had concerns about the use of water during recycling;
- they feared that the use of plastic would increase due to this proposal instead of renewable raw materials;
reuse and recycling should not be pit against each other;
on reuse, the condition of packaging as well as safety and hygiene had to be taken into account;
- recycling materials had to be of a sufficient quality for food;
Finland thought it would be difficult to achieve the recycled plastic objectives without chemical recycling for FCM;
this proposal had to be aligned with other pieces of legislation;
Finland called for national specificities to be taken into account.

they supported the targets in the proposal;
it was important when reducing waste that food safety should not be lowered;
Netherlands received conflicting signals on food safety requirements on the use of FCM with recycled content;
- these requirements should be aligned to support further use of recycled content;
EU legislation safeguarded consumer safety, this level of protection had to be maintained;
both consumer and environmental protection was possible;
reducing food waste and plastic waste was important in the Netherlands;
- on the EU level they called for a integral perspective to reduce waste for both;
- the Netherlands had a strong national system for this;
- results showed that special focus needed to be given to reduce single use plastic related to food waste;
they called for more of a focus on food waste rather than packaging;
the footprint of a food product was 95% food and 5% packaging;
packaging could be reduced without a negative impact on food waste.

Malta saw the importance of reducing packaging and food waste as much as possible;
measures to prevent excessive packaging would lessen the food sectors impact on the environment;
Malta called for a holistic, evidence based approach when looking for viable options to preserve food;
changes should not have a negative impact on MS facing a competitive advantage such as distance in the transportation of materials;
human health had to remain the priority;
sustainable alternatives that came into contact with food had to provide a high level of protection had it had to be better addressed in the FCM legislation;
they called for the food lifecycle to be continued;
new packaging could shorten shelf life and so increase food waste;
what could be done at the national level also had to be looked at;
the impact on SMEs needed flexibility;
Malta was reliant on tourism so a balance had to be found for businesses to invest and the elimination of single use plastic;
- they called for a transition period to allow businesses to adjust to new requirements;
sustainable use and recycling could have an important role in reducing packaging;
this should not increase the use of water or the cost of transportation;
all proposals of the Farm to Fork Strategy had to be taken into account to ensure competitiveness;
- this would mean protecting small farmers from additional burdens.

Austria said recycling and refilling were tried and tested;
- the high standard for food product packaging had to be maintained;
in the transition to a circular economy, bio-based solutions played a role;
- many innovative uses existed for packaging;
- use of raw materials should be promoted;
recycling of PET bottles was a good example of where high standards were maintained;
an important way to reduce packaging waste would be to use other plastic extracted from packaging waste;
- if it was safe it could be used for food packaging;
there were structures in place in MS that worked for many years;
this is why they were critical of the change from a directive to a regulation;
- the regulation should be limited to product specific rules;
rules already in place on FCM should not be contradicted.

Slovakia welcomed the proposal;
it was the use of labelling dates or packaging of fruit and vegetables that had a greatest impact on food waste;
on recycled material, plastics and their reuse for FCM needed an analysis to determine their impact on food safety and shelf life.

for Belgium food safety and hygiene were the most important;
all legislation in this area should be consistent and without contradiction;
all food packaging had to comply with Regulation 1935/2004 on FCM;
the EU had to avoid a situation where if single use plastics were prohibited it would lead to an increase in the use of food additives;
on recycling and reuse, all initiatives had to be aligned with other pieces of legislation;
it was not possible to recycle all packaging that came into contact with food so Belgium called for a focus on R&D to develop new technologies;
- there had to be more investment for efficient recycling infrastructure;
they wanted to reduce the environmental impact of recycling as much as possible;
- there could only be recycling if consumers were properly informed;
- this was also the case for reuse and refill;
- Belgium emphasised that operators and consumers had to be properly informed.

Romania supported the adoption of the new rules on reducing packaging and waste while preserving food safety;
the role of materials in avoiding the contamination of products or preventing waste should not be overlooked;
food safety also had to be maintained;
packaging was a determining factor of food safety;
Romania stated that packaging should not be avoided at all costs as it had the role to protect food and to avoid waste;
- consumers preferred packaged food during COVID as it provided more safety;
the called for a more in-depth analysis to ensure that restrictions on packaging were only taken into account when necessary;
the highest potential for a circular economy was in the food & drinks sector;
Romania aimed to better label products and to use recycled materials;
- predictability had to be taken into account to safeguard investments and stimulate innovation;
the requirements proposed had to be fair;
the impact and costs of new packaging had to be taken into account;
they called for an awareness campaign to inform consumers;
- good practices should be promoted and operators informed of higher hygiene standards;
there should be more investment for new technologies.

Croatia wanted to maintain a general scrutiny at this point;
- the in-depth analysis was ongoing;
the shortage of sufficient packaging should not negatively impact food security;
on minimum recycled content and reuse and refill, it was not known if a sufficient amount of packaging could be acquired;
- it was important to ensure there was an appropriate transition period;
Croatia called for an impact assessment on the potential of additional food waste;
packaging in contact with food had to meet strict criteria and if not properly separated for new recycling it could endanger the health of consumers;
due to rising prices of food, they were concerned that this proposal could further increase costs;
the labelling system should be harmonised and not create new obligations.

Greece agreed with the overall objectives;
due to the nature of the products here, the right approach had to be found not to damage all of the operators in the food chain;
- consumers also had to be protected;
food safety had to be maintained with good shelf life;
some products had to have the right packaging to remain hygienic;
on packaging, its composition had to be focused on;
- Geographical indications also needed to be looked at;
there were some products that took into account the specificities of foodstuffs;
on FCM, Greece called for alignment with other pieces of legislation.

Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for the Environment, European Commission

the guiding principle was that food safety and the prevention of food waste would not be undermined;
on waste prevention, the proposal already had various mitigating measures;
- he said there would be derogations for certain operators and products;
- there would be phase in periods for a smooth transition;
on safety, analysis did not allow to link the increase of single use packaging with a high health status achieved in the EU;
- this was a business model at the cost of the planets resources;
recycled content in packaging had to be safe and free of content of concern;
if recycled content was used in food packaging, specific requirements would limit the use of recycled plastic in some obligations;
the EC would be vigilant on operators trying to circumvent requirements;
revision of FCM legislation would also strive to support reusable packaging;
- the EC would ensure the consistency between both initiatives;
on food waste, it was a great concern;
- despite growing concern and political measures, it had not decreased;
- single use plastic packaging increased tremendously;
packaging protected food from damage, contamination and increased shelf life;
the impact assessment recognised this and did not consider a horizontal ban;
- it would set specific restrictions that took into account food waste;
on reuse and recycling, the architecture built on improvements in both areas;
- this would help with their co-existence;
reuse targets for selected sectors were the main measure but they had supports;
- this included reuse and refill systems, standardisation of packaging formats and clear definitions of reusable packaging;
the mandatory deposit return systems were the main measure to recover single use packaging;
- the proposal had an opt out for MS with high collection rates by other means;
each recycling process involved losses;
the impact assessment saw an increase in recycling rates from 2019-2030;
- the volume of waste recycled would have to be increased by 2030 so there was no threats to the recycling business;
on the impact assessment, aggregated impacts of the proposal would see a reduction of emissions of 1.2 million tonnes by 2030 and a light decrease of water consumption.

The simultaneous interpretation of debates provided by the EU institutions serves only to facilitate communication amongst the participants in the meeting. It does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. One Policy Place uses these translations so this text is only a guide and should not be relied on as an official account of the meeting. Only the original speech or the revised written translation of that speech is authentic.