A New Era in Metal Packaging

Preparing Your Business for PFAS and BPA Restrictions

The food packaging industry is at a crossroads. Upcoming deadlines for new EU regulations – specifically PPWR regarding PFASand Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 concerning BPA – are forcing manufacturers to not only change their technology but, above all, to re-evaluate their approach to quality control and supply chain management. As practitioners supporting compliance processes, we have prepared a guide to the key challenges that will become a priority for every manager in the industry in the coming months.

1. PFAS and PPWR: The Controversy Over Measurement Methodology

One of the most debated issues regarding the upcoming PPWR regulations is the method for calculating PFAS limits, including the critical threshold of 50 ppm for Total Fluorine (TF). Currently, two main interpretations exist in the market, and the choice between them is fundamental for assessing product compliance.

The Unit-Based Interpretation (Holistic)

Some market participants advocate for an approach based on the packaging unit as a whole. In this interpretation, all components of a can (body, lid, and tab) are treated as a single product.

• Rationale: Proponents refer to selected guidelines suggesting that limits should apply to the entire packaging unit, including coatings, varnishes, adhesives, and inks.
• Practical Effect: This method allows for “averaging” substance content – a higher concentration of PFAS in a small element (e.g., the tab) is offset by the large mass of the can body. This often results in a total value well below the threshold (e.g., around 5 ppm for the complete unit).

The Element-Based Interpretation (Conservative)

The second school of interpretation assumes testing each element separately (the per-element approach).

• Rationale: This is based on the strict definition of “packaging” in the PPWR, which distinguishes this term from “packaging unit”. Furthermore, it draws on European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law (Case C-106/14), which states that substance limits should apply to each individual article/component rather than the complex finished product.
• Practical Effect: In this model, the body, lid, and tab must each meet the requirements independently. This prevents the “dilution” of high chemical concentrations by the mass of other elements, which some regulatory bodies believe better serves the goal of consumer protection.

Regardless of the interpretation chosen, the European Commission recommends a three-step verification method, starting with a Total Fluorine (TF) screening. If the TF result is < 50 mg/kg, the element is considered compliant.

2. BPA: The “Non-Intentional Use” Trap

New regulations regarding Bisphenol A (BPA) introduce a critical distinction between the ban on use and the ban on presence, which is particularly vital for dual-backend production lines.

• Article 3 (Prohibition of Use): Prohibits the intentional addition of BPA as a monomer or starting substance. In this regime, cross-contamination (e.g., through fumes in a shared oven for BPA and BPA-NI lines) is recognized as an “adventitious source,” which does not necessarily constitute a violation of the rules.
• Article 4 (Zero Tolerance): This is a much stricter regime. If you use another bisphenol or a bisphenol derivative in your process (e.g., TMBPFDGE, often used in modern coatings), the zero-tolerance rule applies. In such cases, the packaging must not contain any detectable residues of BPA (above 1 µg/kg), regardless of whether they come from intentional addition or fume contamination.

For manufacturers, this necessitates a rigorous audit of coating compositions to verify if used BPA alternatives automatically trigger the Article 4 regime, making any cross-contamination impermissible.

3. The Moment of “Placing on the Market” – A Trap for Stock

The greatest logistical challenge is the definition of the moment a product is “placed on the market.” For sales packaging (e.g., beverage cans), this is the moment the packaging is filled and closed by the customer, not the date the empty can was manufactured.

• PFAS: From August 12, 2026, empty packaging filled after this date must meet the limits. The regulations do not provide a transition period for exhausting stocks of empty cans.
• BPA: For standard beverage cans, the deadline is July 20, 2026. However, a 12-month period is provided to fill and close packaging that was already placed on the market (delivered to the customer) before that date.

4. Compliance Strategy – Practical Recommendations

To avoid operational paralysis in 2026, manufacturers should take the following steps:

1. Audit Declarations of Compliance (DoC): Require suppliers to provide detailed analytical data (TF) and a full list of bisphenols and derivatives used (in accordance with Annex III of the BPA Regulation).
2. Verify Analytical Methods: Results from migration tests in food simulants, rather than just extraction from the coating, provide the correct basis for assessing compliance with Article 4 of the BPA Regulation.
3. Manage Contamination (GMP): In dual-backend configurations, robust Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) documentation is essential to demonstrate measures taken to minimize contamination risks, such as fume monitoring and production sequencing.
4. Export Procedures: Producing items with BPA for markets outside the EU requires strict separation, labeling batches as “for export only,” and maintaining traceability documentation to prevent these products from being diverted back into the EU market.

Compliance is no longer just a legal formality; it is the foundation of business security. Preparing technical documentation (in accordance with Annex VII of the PPWR) is the responsibility of every manufacturer who wishes to maintain the trust of their partners and avoid the risk of product recalls.