THEMATIC SESSION ON Regulatory Cooperation between Members on
Food Contact Packaging

25 march 2025, 11:30-13:00

Moderator's Report[1]

At the Tenth Triennial Review, Members agreed to continue to hold thematic sessions in conjunction with the TBT Committee's regular meetings from 2025 to 2027 to further deepen the exchange of experiences on specific topics. On this basis, the Committee agreed to hold a thematic session on regulatory cooperation between Members on food contact packaging.^[2] Information about the speakers, presentations, and related materials is available on the WTO website.^[3]

1  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE MODERATOR

1.1.  Given the high level of interest in the March 2023 thematic session on regulatory cooperation between Members on plastic regulations and the unique role packaging plays for agricultural products it is a pleasure to revisit and dive more deeply into this topic.

1.2.  From that discussion, we were introduced to the general contours of measures to reduce plastic waste and plastic pollution. This session will discuss the potential trade-offs when we attempt to reduce or replace food contact packaging and how regulators and industry can help to reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes, such as food loss and waste or the introduction of food safety concerns. 

2  GUIDING QUESTIONS

·_              What approaches do Members use to reduce plastic packaging and plastic packaging waste, and with respect to food packaging? What's the role of international standards and, in particular, of GRP?

·_              What private sector approaches exist to reduce plastic packaging and plastic waste for food contact applications?

·_              What are some of the challenges, limitations, and potential food safety and food durability implications of reducing plastic packaging for food products; using reusable food containers; and using recycled or other alternative materials in food packaging? How do Members take these challenges into account when designing standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment procedures?

·_              How can TBT Agreement principles as well as TBT Committee guidance and discussions contribute to effective policies in this area?

·_              How can the TBT Agreement support cross-cutting global objectives, such as environmental objectives? What role can the TBT Committee play to support coherence inside (across different WTO bodies) and outside of the WTO (e.g., across other international organizations and bodies)?

3  INTERVENTIONS

3.1  Round One

3.1.  In the first round of interventions speakers were invited to respond to introductory questions that were categorized into three sub-groups.

Group 1: What are some of the challenges, limitations, and potential implications of reducing plastic packaging for food products; using reusable food containers; and using recycled or other alternative materials in food packaging?

3.2.  Mr Bastiaan Schupp (European Union)[4] discussed new EU legislation aimed at minimising quantities of packaging and packaging waste and advancing the transition to a more circular and sustainable economy. He noted that this regulation will apply from August 2026 and that it is expected to have significant impacts on recycling and reuse as well as provide greater legal certainty in order to help the market develop good solutions. Mr Schupp stated that an important aspect for recycled plastic material used in food packaging is that it is decontaminated. He noted that the EU has a strong legal framework to ensure that recycled plastic material placed on the EU market complies with decontamination requirements. He remarked however that a key challenge is in determining whether recycled plastic material is safe and produced in accordance with authorized production and auditing processes. This becomes especially difficult to ascertain if they occur outside of the EU. He also spoke on the increasing interest in reuse of plastic packaging, however noted that aspects of food hygiene and traceability make it challenging to find good alternatives to single use plastic packaging. He concluded by noting that these policies would be more applicable in a local context rather than an international one. 

3.3.  Mr Dan Duguay (Canada)[5] highlighted four key challenges to reducing plastic packaging with a focus on fresh produce. First, he noted that there are multiple outcomes at play regarding food packaging namely: food loss and waste, maximizing shelf life, ensuring food availability year-round, affordability, food safety and ensuring supply chains operate effectively and efficiently. Second, he noted that there are issues around definitions. Terms like "reusable", "recyclable" and "compostable" are often used interchangeably however these are not interchangeable modalities, in particular with regards to logistics. From a consumer standpoint there is also little clarity on the differences between these terms. He noted that when considering these alternatives to mitigate plastic waste it is important to distinguish that they are different from each other.  Third, he emphasized the importance of alignment and harmonization of plastic packaging requirements and that this will be crucial to maximising the sustainability of fresh produce supply chains, and food supply chains more broadly.

3.4.  Lastly, he stressed that divergent requirements create barriers to food availability and affordability. He noted that many regulations and policies can conflate or insufficiently differentiate between food and non-food packaging which creates regulatory barriers. He remarked that differences in regulations across jurisdictions are a key challenge and there is also potential conflict when different regulations apply to the same item. He concluded by noting that this will become increasingly important as more regulations relating to environmental outcomes overlay existing regulations related to issues like food safety.

3.5.  Mr Tim Chandler (United Kingdom)[6] discussed the potential impacts to businesses from setting higher limits for recycled content in final plastic applications. He noted that while this would be an effective way of advancing the circular economy, this would increase the demand for suitable plastic recycled material available on the market which could come at a cost to businesses. He stated that there would need to be sufficient investment in plastic recycling in order to ensure that suitable recycled material can be obtained. He also emphasized that regulators have a duty to ensure that no domestic or international policies hinder operators looking to scale up or be more competitive in the market. Mr Chandler also remarked that there are potential challenges to higher recycled content and it is not always possible to achieve this for certain polymer types for plastic packaging as the quality could be impaired, resulting in potential food safety risks.

3.6.  He added that policies and incentives to reduce plastic packaging could encourage the increase in use of alternative materials with an unknown safety profile. He noted that the UK Food Standards Agency is currently investigating bio-based or natural food contact materials, focusing on wheat and chitosan. This follows an FSA funded literature review on bio-based materials which recommended that further evidence was required to understand the potential risks of certain bio-based food contact materials. Mr Chandler also shared that the FSA have developed guidelines for bio-based materials specifically for developers in this sector and also provides advice to anyone seeking to create a start-up in this sector.

Group 2: What are some best practices or lessons learned from your work in the development of these measures to avoid unintended externalities, such as food loss and waste or the introduction of contaminants?

3.7.  Ms Cher Merewether (Canada)[7] discussed the importance of taking a more holistic approach when considering the impacts of food loss and waste, taking into account aspects such as agricultural impacts from food production, soil biodiversity, deforestation, embedded labour, greenhouse gases and water use in the full life cycle from farm-to-plate, in addition to the impacts of the final plastic packaging. She provided an example to illustrate this point noting that for a cucumber wrapped in plastic film its shelf life is extended from 3-5 days to 10-14 days as the plastic film reduces moisture loss and slows down spoilage. An extended shelf life ultimately increases its chance of being eaten and reduces the potential for food waste. She also noted that when compared, the overall social, economic and environmental impacts of the food waste far exceed the impacts of the plastic waste. In this instance, eliminating the plastic film as a regulatory measure would result in greater unintended consequences. Ms Merewether noted that globally around 50% of food produced is packaged using film and flexible plastic as it is lightweight and durable however current infrastructure is inadequate to recycle due to it being made of multiple resins and materials.

3.8.  She noted that these challenges are being addressed by assessing current recycling practices, identifying gaps, and proposing technological advancements to optimise the sorting and recycling process. She concluded by stating that plastic pacts are championing the application of universal design principles and influencing policies and regulations that will align best practices globally.

3.9.  Dr. Max Teplitski (United States)[8] highlighted that the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) has carried out an assessment on the consequences of eliminating plastic packaging or supplementing existing packaging formats, with a focus on three elements namely: i) food integrity and cross-contamination; ii) reducing food loss and waste; and iii) food safety and sustainability trade-offs. He asserted that while plastic packaging waste is a significant environmental challenge, it is important to consider the importance of plastic packaging in particular for fresh and ready-to-eat meals e.g., pre-made salads as well as fresh cut fruit and vegetables. He noted that plastic packaging supports a modified atmosphere of a mixture of gases for fresh produce that extends its shelf life of by 16-17 days with minimal or no refrigeration.

3.10.  He stated that if plastic packaging for fresh and ready-to-eat food is eliminated, this will result in an increase in both cost and carbon footprint. Impacts would include a potential reduction in shelf life by 10-20%, an increase in contamination and spoilage by 5-15% and considering that food waste accounts for 8-10% of greenhouse gas emissions, the increase associated with the elimination of plastic packaging would result in a 2-5% increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a 10-20% increase in the carbon footprint of transportation by their estimate. He noted that the cost of producing and distributing certain commodities would also increase, for example berries, leafy greens, tomatoes, apples and pears, by 15-30%. Dr Max added that while there would also be commodities whose cost would reduce from the elimination of plastic packaging, this assessment had only identified 3 such commodities.

3.11.  With regard to food safety and quality, he noted that plastic packaging minimizes the risk of cross-contamination at retail. He then concluded by stating that certain products would require an additional level of investment, for instance organic products and new varieties. To help producers of organic products and newer varieties to recoup their investments he noted that it will be important to ensure these products are identifiable at the point of sale through labelling and packaging.

3.12.  Ms Shani Griffith Jack (Barbados)[9] discussed the work of the Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (DPP). She noted that through this dialogue Members seek to understand the positive and negative impacts of trade-related measures adopted to address plastic pollution and learn from each other's best practices. She stated that to this extent Members will focus in 2025 on lessons learned and good practices and will seek to develop some outcomes for MC14 in the context of the DPP, in particular for single use plastics. Ms Jack noted that the DPP currently has 83 co-sponsors representing 90% of the global trade in plastics and highlighted that they have conducted a mapping of 220 trade-related plastics measures, with food safety identified by Members as one of eight key objectives.  She added that 19 measures were identified in the survey that proposed draft rules or final minimum requirements for recycled synthetic resins when extended for use in contact with food and also for those obtained through chemical recycling.

3.13.  She noted also that Members had shared their challenges related to sorting food grade recyclable products as well as non-food grade plastics, and the accumulation of potentially harmful chemicals and contaminants including from recycler associations. She stated that while Members acknowledged the importance of reducing plastic packaging waste, they also raised concerns on the impact this would have on product shelf life and compliance with regulatory requirements in export markets. Ms Jack highlighted one of the work streams of the DPP which is on sound, safe and effective non-plastic substitutes and alternatives and noted that workshops dedicated to this topic brought up the lack of adapted international standards. She stated that in a previous DPP meeting, ISO discussed its ongoing efforts to map existing standards for alternatives and substitutes. She provided an example to illustrate this point by noting that at a previous DPP meeting a private sector representative shared their challenges in selling their products due to the lack of adapted regulations in the markets they operated in.

Group 3: What is the role of international standards and is harmonization feasible for food contact packaging?

3.14.  Mr Jim Huang (United States)[10] discussed the complexity of regulating food contact packaging by outlining two distinct approaches: the EU’s system of exhaustive positive listing of chemical substances, and the US’s prescriptive system of safety standards for packaging materials. He emphasized that both the substance and the material approaches are valid and functional but structurally incompatible, making strict harmonization infeasible. Mr Huang proposed focusing on scientific equivalence and mutual recognition rather than harmonization, considering that both substances and materials are steps removed from the food as consumed. He emphasized the potential of Codex Alimentarius and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) to play a role in establishing scientific baselines that could support convergence and interoperability in regulation.

3.15.  Ms Desy Rasta Waty (Indonesia)[11] provided an ASEAN regulatory perspective, explaining that Indonesia has implemented regulations on food contact packaging and recently notified to the WTO. She noted that while ASEAN has successfully harmonized standards for ceramics using ISO references, efforts to do so for plastic packaging have not progressed due to the complexity and variety of plastics. She emphasized the need for international standard-setting bodies such as ISO and Codex to fill this gap by developing relevant food packaging standards. She also described Indonesia’s use of good regulatory practices (GRPs), including early stakeholder consultation and transparency, as tools for managing competing policy objectives.

3.2  Round Two

3.16.  In the second round of interventions speakers were invited to respond to individualised questions.

How is the Canadian Plastics Pact driving fundamental systems change as it relates to food contact packaging?

3.17.  Ms Cher Merewether noted that the Canadian Plastics Pact convenes a diverse mix of organizations across the plastics value chain including government, academia and NGOs. She remarked that this enables a collaborative approach to solving problems that would be difficult to tackle in isolation. She highlighted its activity in creating accelerators where solution providers partner with the investor community to scale solutions for addressing plastic waste. She provided an example of a recent accelerator that focused on removing single use packaging to a reusable food service packaging system. She noted that this scaled innovation reduced 2.9 million containers, equating to 490,000 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions, 169,000 kilograms of plastic waste, and saved 23 million litres of water. She remarked that this programme was seeking to expand and exploring the possibility of creating an at-home reuse collection system by leveraging the recycling logistics and infrastructure to further scale reuse and make it accessible to residents who have access to recycling programmes.

What role can Codex play to support increased regulatory alignment?  And for food packaging, what should Codex prioritize (e.g., existing, alternative, recycled materials)?

3.18.  Mr Jim Huang observed that Codex has committees on food additives, contaminants, hygiene, labelling, and many other aspects of food but not on food packaging. This absence can be regarded as an indication that harmonization at the regulatory level is not feasible. However, WTO members can instead look at food safety, which factors in toxicological thresholds and consumer exposure, to provide a basis for mutual recognition. He noted that biology and chemistry transcend national borders, and by returning to scientific fundamentals we can find a path forward for international alignment. He welcomed the attention on recycled food contact materials at Codex and urged prioritization on this safety-focused initiative.

How can the TBT Committee and DPP better collaborate to exchange ideas and avoid duplication of efforts regarding trade-related challenges and opportunities in addressing plastic pollution linked to food contact packaging?

3.19.  Ms Shani Griffith Jack noted that there are clear synergies between the work of the TBT committee and the DPP. She recalled that the DPP have mapped 220 measures, a majority of which were regulatory measures. She stated that the DPP offers an opportunity to have holistic discussions on the topic and that hopefully the insights shared at the thematic session would be helpful in cross-fertilization with TBT. She remarked that by the same token, the TBT thematic session on plastics in 2023 led to helpful discussions and work at the DPP in recent months, all important in preparation for concrete outcomes at MC14.

Many existing plastic packaging reduction policies are less likely to impact bulk shipments of food. In your view, what proportion of international food shipments would be affected by these policies, and what kinds of food products may be most affected?

3.20.  Mr Bastiaan Schupp noted that there is insufficient data in relation to international trade of packaged food and as a result there is limited knowledge of the proportion of food that is affected internationally by packaging rules. He stated that at a local scale (within the EU) these figures are understood, but not at the global scale. He also noted that specific categories of foods are affected disproportionately e.g., artisanal food products, and that small producers struggle to comply with various requirements across jurisdictions, in turn negatively impacting these producers and reducing consumer choice.

In your assessment, what is the technological readiness of alternatives to single use plastic packaging for maintaining quality, shelf-life and microbiological safety of value-add products (such as pre-made salads, pre-cut fruits and vegetables) that could be scaled for mass consumers?)

3.21.  Dr. Max Teplitski reiterated the importance of packaging for fresh produce as it creates an optimal environment for various processes and prevents cross-contamination as it is often consumed raw or without further preparation. He added also that innovation in this sector is taking place however there is a need for regulatory certainty. He remarked that there is a growing number of emerging regulations across different jurisdictions and in the context of packaging for fresh produce there is little overlap. Additionally, he stated that different commodities will require different types of packaging. He provided examples of existing innovations such as polymer-based solutions that contain food safe antimicrobials like enzymes and small peptides that inhibit growth of certain pathogens, intelligent packaging with time and temperature indicators, packaging that prevents temperature shocks and packaging that absorbs moisture among others. He underscored that in the absence of regulatory uniformity in key markets it will be difficult to invest at a scale and level that would make these innovative packaging solutions accessible to consumers.

What role can government and non-government stakeholders play in supporting regulatory authorities in designing better technical regulations?

3.22.  Ms Desy Rasta Waty emphasized Indonesia’s approach to stakeholder engagement and transparent regulatory development. She noted that the government consults with business operators and consumers from the outset of regulation development to ensure feasibility and alignment with food safety objectives. Ms Waty described the use of good regulatory practices, including public consultations and risk-based approaches. She stressed that inclusive processes are essential to balancing trade, environmental, and safety considerations.

What are foreseen or observed unintended consequences of initiatives to maximize plastic recycling for food contact?

3.23.  Mr Tim Chandler noted that setting a higher level of recycled content in plastic applications could lead to potential technical issues and impairment of quality depending on the polymer type, which in turn could have significant impacts to consumers and in some cases may not be technically feasible to apply such a high percentage. He noted that it is important to assess what the current possibilities are and what is in development and set limits based on this.  He reemphasized that the increased demand for suitably recycled plastic material comes at a cost for businesses as prices have increased for this material, which has also been feedback received from trade associations in the UK. He concluded by noting that the FSA will continue supporting plastic recycling operators in regard to the international trade of food contact plastic packaging and expressed the hope that this would provide reassurance to businesses and encourage further investment.

What example of an initiative in Canada can you share that illustrates best practices in mitigating the risks of unintended consequences when aiming to reducing plastic packaging for food products?

3.24.  Mr Dan Duguay shared the experience of sectoral collaboration between the composting sector and the fresh produce sector in the context of produce stickers. He noted that produce stickers are a core technology that allows the fresh produce industry to sell fresh produce in an unpackaged or bulk format. However, the issue arises that produce stickers are considered plastic waste in many jurisdictions and as a contaminant in composting or organic recycling facilities. He remarked that there were several unintended consequences to eliminating produce stickers, including reducing the availability of bulk produce, impacts on affordability, increasing use of packaging and potentially limiting the availability of organic variants. To address the underlying issue of compostability of produce stickers or exploring the possibility of a global standard for compostable PLU (price look-up code) stickers, representatives from the composting and fresh produce industry sought to identify solutions and a common approach. The results of this dialogue brought forward a proposal for a single global standard for compostable produce stickers, an effort led by the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the Compost Council of Canada, with the support of global entities such as the International Federation for Produce Standards and the International Composting Alliance.

3.3  Round Three

3.25.  In the third round of questions panellists were invited to respond to questions from the audience.

3.26.  Mr Jim Huang reiterated that harmonization in a strict sense where different incompatible regulations align is not realistic. However, he noted that WTO agreements make space not only for harmonization but also equivalence, and through the means of mutual recognition, we can collaborate on reducing technical barriers to trade.

3.27.  Mr Tim Chandler expressed the importance of adhering to the fundamental principles of the TBT Agreement and facilitating open engagement between Members.

4  COMMENT BY THE MODERATOR

4.1.  I would like to thank the Chair, Secretariat, participating speakers, Members and other moderators for the well-run and informative thematic sessions this week.

4.2.  I greatly enjoyed the new, dynamic format for thematic sessions and hope that this structure provided a useful and enlightening session for this Committee.

4.3.  This session provided an excellent opportunity for Members to share experiences and explore the nuances related to food contact packaging, in particular the possible trade-offs when Members consider voluntary and regulatory approaches to reduce packaging or use alternatives to packaging

4.4.  Our session included eight expert speakers, from six countries, including Barbados, Canada, the European Union, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

4.5.  To avoid repeating my statements from the cross-cutting session with the Committee on Trade and the Environment (CTE), I want to highlight a few key points that were made by our speakers that are notable for this Committee and as it relates to the TBT Agreement:

·_              The importance of avoiding one size-fits-all approaches;

·_              Using outcome-based approaches to regulation;

·_              Using, and participating in the development of, international standards;

·_              Giving positive consideration to mutual recognition/equivalence;

·_              Emphasizing transparency and stakeholder engagement throughout the regulatory process;

·_              Using the best available scientific and technical information; and

·_              Avoiding unnecessary costs and burdens on producers and exporters.

4.6.  Additionally, our speaker from Barbados also highlighted the value of cross-pollination and information sharing between the CTE, specifically the DPP, and TBT Committee to support shared workstreams and to avoid duplicating efforts.

4.7.  As a point of reflection, I want to suggest that we consider taking a more fluid approach to the structure and duration of each thematic session as it would be helpful to provide a bit more time for those sessions with a high level of interest from speakers. To this end, I would suggest early coordination between the Secretariat, Chair, and moderators to coordinate thematic structures, formats, and durations to make subtle adjustments to improve the delivery of each thematic session and to ensure balance between speakers and topics.

__________