In September 2021, the authors of this article organised a workshop for European Union agencies that are responsible for enforcing food safety with respect to food contact materials (FCM). The workshop took place online in four 2.5-h sessions over the course of two weeks. There were 84 participants from 16 EU member states. The enforcement of compliance work for FCM on the European market is relevant for business operators around the globe. Control campaigns covering supporting documentation from several stakeholders in the supply chain will be key in future enforcement work.

1 Why was there a need for this workshop?

Enforcement of the legal provisions for FCM is weak, as established by the evaluation of the relevant European Regulations (European Commission 2020). One of the main problems in enforcement is the chemical diversity and sheer number of substances that may enter food via FCM (Grob et al. 2006). One complicating aspect in the control are the various responsibilities for the potential migration of substances, due to the long chain of business operators who contribute to a final FCM. For this reason, the EU Commission crafted Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006. This piece of legislation lays out the responsibilities for each business operator who plays a part in manufacturing of FCM. It puts the burden of the safety assessment on the business operator with the appropriate knowledge of the materials and chemicals that are actually used. More details for the elaboration of the compliance work of business operators along the supply chain of plastic FCM have been made available by the European Commission (2013).

A manufacturers chain may look like this:

Supermarket (food) → food producer → packaging producer → provider of film for layer → manufacturer of film → manufacturer of polymer.

Figure 1 shows what Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 requires of each company (e.g., the manufacturer of the film). The substantial and challenging part is the supporting documentation. It is confidential as it contains trade secrets, but must be presented to authorities upon request.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Business operators must generate (1) supporting documentation and (2) a declaration for their FCM (intermediate) product covering all substances they introduce into the food contact system

Full size image

The enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 is mainly carried out in the context of inspections of a single business operator. However, it is very rarely applied from a product perspective, and is therefore applied to all business operators in the supply chain of that product.

If an enforcement agency for food safety wants to check whether Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 was followed for a product sold in their area of jurisdiction, they will have to check what compliance work was performed for the product. The enforcement agency can only learn if a product is safe by knowing that all involved business operators worked according to Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006. Realistically, this can only be achieved by checking the documentation of the compliance work performed in the entire supply chain. An analytical safety check is very difficult, due to the number of potentially migrating substances that are introduced into the final product at different points in the supply chain. To be able to check that the safety was assessed according to the legislation, an enforcement body must be able to collect and assess all the compliance work of a given product. A consequence of this system is that business operators must provide the supporting documentation irrespectively of where they are located on the globe. It is unrealistic that the importer of a product to the European market will be given access to the supporting documentation, as it contains trade secrets. Therefore, enforcement authorities were very interested in the workshop as reflected by the number of participants (84) exceeding the expectations of the organisers.

2 What topics were covered in the workshop?

The workshop’s first session was an introduction and contained three talks on legislation and on past experiences with enforcing Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 in Germany and in Switzerland. Additionally, participants were informed on past campaigns on compliance work, e.g., on lids on glass jars (McCombie et al. 2015) and on polyolefin granulates (McCombie et al. 2016; Daniel et al. 2019). It was the introduction to a new type of enforcement work that many experts in the field were not accustomed to: a product control that, due to the lack of chemical analysis, resembled an inspection. It was emphasised that this type of control can be applied to all types of FCM, not only plastics.

The second session was dedicated to inspectors. It started with a presentation of the inspection concept for food contact business operators in Denmark and was followed by a panel discussion.

The third and fourth sessions focussed on group work. Participants established aspects that are necessary to be considered when starting a campaign on compliance work for a given product. The outcome of the group work from all groups was summarised as a toolbox for enforcement authorities. It gives guidance on and acts as a reminder for all the aspects that should not be forgotten. At the core of the toolbox is a letter that can be sent through the chain of business operators. The letter specifies the controlled product, the controlling authority as well as which aspects of the compliances work are being audited. The authority may take a sample from the market and address the business operator from where the sample was taken. The authority may say “we are checking product xy and in particular whether the compliance work for aspect yz was performed according to internationally recognised principles of risk assessment. Please forward this information to your supplier, who can forward it to his supplier. You can send the relevant data directly to the authority, to protect confidentiality.” A chain letter of this sort allows the authority to track the chain of business operators and send reminders to the appropriate business operators. The business operators may be anywhere on the globe, as long as the final product is sold on the market of the requesting authority where it must enforce food safety.

The toolbox also included how authorities may check documents for compliance. The migration potential of a substance and its hazards must be evaluated according to internationally recognised scientific principles, specified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (EFSA 2008; EFSA 2012; EFSA 2016). The toolbox also contained a list of measures that can be taken when non-compliances are found.

Finally, the workshop included a group work session collecting ideas for enforcement campaigns. The question regarding adequate compliance work can address something very specific, such as plasticiser migration from lids on glass jars or something very general such as compliance work for all substances in polyolefin granulates (McCombie et al. 2015, 2016; Daniel et al. 2019).

3 Who attended the workshop?

The workshop was attended by a diverse group of people from European enforcement agencies and included analytical chemists working in official control laboratories, office workers who take measures against non-compliances and inspectors who visit food businesses. Some of the participants work hands-on, some of them hold managerial roles. This was exactly the kind of diverse attendance that is necessary for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 for a specific product. The feedback from the attendees was very positive and most of the participants who responded to a short survey (around 40%) found the workshop helpful and inspiring.

4 What will the future bring?

Many more enforcement authorities are now aware of the most efficient way to control compliance with article 3 of Regulation 1935/2004. Business operators who are involved in the manufacturing of FCM must expect to receive requests from food safety authorities who are far away from their business’s location. This is particularly challenging for businesses who are not completely familiar with EU legislation. The most challenging part for enforcement authorities is finding suitable measures in case of non-compliances in the supply chain outside the area of jurisdiction or even outside the EU. As a worst case, a ban on imports must be considered.