PPWR PFAS limits and the declaration of conformity, explained

Since 12 August 2026, food-contact packaging placed on the EU market has had to meet binding limits on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The same date brought a second, less-discussed but equally consequential obligation: every type of packaging placed on the EU market now needs a signed EU declaration of conformity, backed by a technical file. The two rules sit in the same article of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 and they work together. Get the PFAS testing wrong and the declaration you sign is false. Get the declaration wrong and you cannot prove the testing was ever done.

Two months into application, this is the part of the PPWR most packaging teams are still finishing. Here is what the rule actually requires, what the Commission’s guidance says about testing, and what a defensible file looks like.

What changed on 12 August 2026

The European Commission confirmed that a restriction on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food-contact packaging entered into application on that date, meaning food-contact packaging containing PFAS above strict limits can no longer be placed on the EU market. The restriction sits in Article 5(5) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, alongside a separate limit on heavy metals that applies to all packaging, not just food-contact packaging.

There was no grace period for stock already in the supply chain. The Commission’s own guidance document is explicit on this point: as regards packaging containing PFAS which has been produced before 12 August 2026, the PPWR does not foresee a transitional period for the exhaustion of stocks. If your packaging was manufactured in July and still contains PFAS above the limits, it cannot legally be placed on the market in September, regardless of when it was made.

The three PFAS thresholds

Article 5(5) sets three limits that apply together, not as alternatives. Food-contact packaging must stay under all three:

25 ppb for any single, non-polymeric PFAS substance, measured by targeted analysis
250 ppb for the sum of targeted, non-polymeric PFAS
50 ppm (50 mg/kg) for total PFAS, including polymeric PFAS, measured as total fluorine

The gap between the first two thresholds and the third is large by design: the 50 ppm total fluorine screen is a broad net, while the 25 ppb and 250 ppb limits target specific, named substances. Put on the same scale, the difference looks like this.

PPWR Article 5(5) PFAS thresholds for food-contact packaging, compared

The limits apply to the packaging unit as a whole, not just the base substrate. The Commission’s guidance states plainly that the limits apply to all PFAS, whether intentionally added or unintentionally present, and apply to the packaging unit as a whole, including inks, coatings, adhesives, and other associated materials. A barrier coating or a printed layer can push a pack over the limit even if the paper or board itself is clean.

How to test, and what “compliant” actually means

There is no single EU-harmonised test method for PFAS in food-contact packaging yet. Legal commentary on the Commission’s FAQ notes that no harmonized EU testing methodology exists for PFAS in food packaging, although the Commission is striving to ensure a harmonized approach of the national market surveillance authorities for the enforcement of the PFAS limits. Some trade sources report the Commission is working with the EU reference laboratory network to close that gap, but until a single method is published, operators are working from the Commission’s guidance.

That guidance, published by the Commission on 5 June 2026 as a Commission Notice, recommends a stepwise approach rather than a single test:

Step 1, total fluorine. Economic operators should first undertake total fluorine quantification. If the result falls below 50 mg/kg, the sample may be considered compliant.
Step 2, organic versus inorganic fluorine. If it is above 50 mg/kg, operators could use methods such as pyrolysis-GC/MS to confirm whether the fluorine is organic or inorganic. If the organic fluorine is below 50 mg/kg, the sample could be considered compliant.
Step 3, targeted analysis. A direct total oxidisable precursor analysis is recommended to check the sample against the 25 ppb and 250 ppb limits where steps 1 and 2 do not rule out PFAS presence.

The Commission adds a practical shortcut: on the basis of the evidence currently available, all samples compliant with the total fluorine content test are also compliant with steps 2 and 3. In practice, most packaging that passes a total fluorine screen at 50 ppm will not need the more expensive targeted analysis. Packaging close to that threshold, or using fluorinated grease-resistance treatments, is a different story and should go through the full stepwise process.

One documentation point is easy to miss. Where a total fluorine result does come back above 50 mg/kg, the obligation to explain it does not stop at the packaging producer. Guidance aimed at food and drink manufacturers notes that where total fluorine exceeds 50 mg/kg, the relevant manufacturer, importer or downstream user must, upon request, provide evidence showing the amount of fluorine attributable to PFAS and non-PFAS substances so that the required technical documentation can be prepared. That pulls material suppliers into the evidence chain, not just the packaging converter.

The declaration of conformity and the file behind it

The PPWR does not use a CE mark for packaging. Conformity is demonstrated through a self-issued EU declaration of conformity under Article 39, built on the Annex VIII template, supported by a technical documentation file under Annex VII. The declaration itself is short: a one or two-page statement that the packaging meets Articles 5 to 12 of the regulation, covering substances of concern, recyclability, recycled content, minimisation, and reuse where relevant.

The file behind it is the substantial part. A workable technical file typically includes a description of the packaging and its materials, layer-by-layer composition, supplier declarations on restricted substances, PFAS test reports for food-contact items, the recyclability assessment, and recycled-content evidence. One compliance guide sets out the structure clearly: the file should contain a general description of the packaging and its intended use; layer-by-layer material composition drawings or specifications; supplier declarations confirming the absence of restricted substances (heavy metals, PFAS); for food-contact packaging, analytical test reports from ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratories confirming PFAS limits; recyclability compliance assessments referencing the applicable grading criteria; recycled content documentation.

A point worth flagging for anyone tempted to shortcut this with existing paperwork: a food-contact migration certificate or a generic quality certificate is not a substitute. One guide warns against accepting non-PPWR documents from suppliers, such as material safety data sheets, food-contact migration certificates, or ISO quality certificates, instead of a PPWR-specific DoC. The declaration has to reference Regulation (EU) 2025/40 specifically.

Retention matters too. Technical documentation and the declaration of conformity must be kept for a set period after the packaging is last placed on the market, with a longer period for reusable packaging than for single-use packaging. Any material change, a new supplier, a different barrier coating, a revised recyclability grade, requires a reissued declaration with a new date rather than an amendment to the old one.

Who has to do what

Role	Core obligation	Evidence to hold	Applies from
Manufacturer	Design packaging to meet Article 5 limits; sign the declaration of conformity	Technical file (Annex VII), test reports, material breakdown	12 August 2026
Importer	Verify the manufacturer’s documentation before placing packaging on the EU market	Copy of the declaration of conformity and technical file	12 August 2026
Material or component supplier	Provide PFAS and substance data on request, including fluorine source data above 50 mg/kg	Test reports, supplier declarations	On request, ongoing
Distributor or retailer	Check that packaging carries valid documentation before making it available	Sight of the declaration of conformity	12 August 2026
National market surveillance authority	Verify compliance, request documentation, test products	Powers under Regulation (EU) 2019/1020	12 August 2026

Where enforcement actually sits

The PPWR does not create a new EU inspection body. Enforcement runs through existing national market surveillance authorities. The Commission’s guidance confirms that the surveillance authorities as referred to in PPWR, based on Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance rules, are competent to verify compliance with the PFAS limits. That means enforcement intensity and testing practice can differ between member states until the promised harmonised method arrives, even though the underlying thresholds are identical across the EU.

The practical consequence for non-compliant packaging is market access, not a fine on day one. A packaging type without a valid declaration and test evidence behind it simply cannot be placed on the market lawfully, which in practice means blocked shipments or forced withdrawal if a surveillance authority asks questions it cannot be answered.

A note on who signs

The Annex VIII declaration template allows for the manufacturer’s details or, where one has been appointed, an authorised representative’s details. Readers should note that a separate, unrelated obligation under Article 45(3), requiring producers to appoint an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility in member states where they are not established, is currently the subject of a Commission proposal to suspend it for EU-established producers until 2035. That proposal has not been adopted and its progress through Parliament and Council has moved in different directions in recent months. It does not change the PFAS or declaration of conformity obligations described here. Anyone affected by Article 45(3) specifically should check the current status of that file separately before acting on it.

What to do now

Pull total fluorine results for every food-contact SKU still being placed on the EU market. If you don’t have a result, treat it as a priority, not a formality.
For anything above 50 ppm total fluorine, commission the step 2 and step 3 testing described in the Commission’s guidance rather than guessing.
Ask coating, ink and adhesive suppliers for PFAS data specifically. A clean substrate with a treated coating can still fail.
Build one technical file per packaging type, not one per product line. Several SKUs can share a file if the packaging is genuinely identical.
Reissue the declaration of conformity whenever a material, supplier or coating changes. Date each version and retain the superseded one.
Check that supplier paperwork references Regulation (EU) 2025/40 directly. Food-contact migration certificates and generic quality certificates are not declarations of conformity.
Confirm who, in your organisation, is contractually responsible for signing the declaration for imported packaging, and make sure that person has sight of the underlying test reports, not just a supplier’s word.

This article is for information and does not replace legal advice. Where documentation decisions carry real commercial risk, check the regulation text on EUR-Lex or take specific legal advice.