PPWR Q&A Summary (USDA/USG Responses)
Summary of Information Received from US Government in Response to Questions on the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)
PLEASE NOTE: This information does not constitute legal advice or guidance
Wine Institute staff met recently with USG staff within the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service to discuss the list of questions and concerns previously provided to the USG, as noted below. See answers below in red.
It was noted that EU Member States are expected to be lenient on enforcement for some time after August 12. The USG is recommending that companies review the EUROPEN guidance on PPWR.
Immediate Market Access Risks
1. The PPWR’s stated objective is harmonization and a single EU framework, but we are already seeing individual members and importers requesting different forms of documentation, declarations and supporting evidentiary data. It will be exceedingly difficult for a CA winery to manage 27 different compliance regimes- especially if EU Member State EPR schemes add additional requirements on top of PPWR.
This concern was acknowledged. There will be divergent implementation across EU Member States because elements of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive- the measure which proceeded this Regulation- are still in force and will remain in force until all elements of the regulation have their own implementing regulations in the EU.
2. Is there any way to allow for a single declaration of conformity that would be sufficient EU-wide (consistent w/ Recital 111)?
In theory, the PPWR’s Declaration of Conformity (DOC) from Annex 8 of the regulation is all an importer should require a winery to fill out. However, because elements of the previous Directive are still in force, EU Member States can incorporate Member State specific requirements that remain- therefore one single DOC used across the EU is not possible.
A separate DOC will be required for each element of the primary packaging and all of the secondary packaging.
For example, if you export glass bottles to Europe with a screw cap, you will have two DOC: one for the glass bottles and one the cap. If you ship bulk using a flexitank liner, one DOC would be required.
DOCs are also required for each element of the secondary or transport packaging: cardboard, pallets, shrink-wrap and straps & wraps.
3. Who is supposed to create the declaration of conformity? One Swedish importer expects the CA winery to produce it while importers in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands are requiring the completion of complex spreadsheets.
The importer is responsible for supplying the DOC- the USG was clear on this element. They should not be asking you to draw up the document. The regulation places the legal responsibility on the importer.
4. Test Reports/Confidentiality- Our wineries are having a difficult time getting the necessary proof from packaging suppliers- what are we to do in this case? There are concerns about confidentiality and it may be that suppliers don’t provide wineries with the level of detail foreseen in the regulation.
The test reports apply to any food contact material. USG referred to Regulation – 2022/1616 – EN – EUR-Lex as still being in force.
If you export in bulk flexi containers, PFAS testing will be required. There are EU test methods for certain PFAS but not all. It is suggested you contact your supplier and identify which PFAS may be present in the plastic or plastic adhesives.
If it is one of the categories of PFAS for which there are EU test methods, testing certificates may be required but if it is one of the PFAS for which the EU has not yet designated a test method, we can push back on this requirement.
If you export in glass, heavy metal testing may be required. However, there are exemptions that carry over from the PPW Directive that still apply. You should understand if your glass has recycled content- including the % of cullet in the bottles you use so that you can assert the exemption for heavy metal testing.
See: Decision – 2001/171 – EN – EUR-Lex. The EU glass trade association is also relying on this decision to exempt glass that contains recycled content from heavy metal testing.
Wine in glass bottles is exempt from the PPWR’s reuse requirements. However, reuse requirements may apply to flexitank bladders and some secondary packaging such as pallets- in the future. US exporters may also be expected to adjust pallet sizes to EU specifications in the future.
The EU FAQ document notes cork is exempt from recyclability requirements, but they may be subject to the food contact material requirements specified in:
Regulation – 2022/1616 – EN – EUR-Lex. We are seeking clarity on this point from the USG.
5. Are there any immediate labeling changes we need to make sure happen before August 12? Are exporters supposed to include a unique identifier number on each packaging component or the winery’s name and address?
The USG was clear that Article 15 “Obligations of Manufacturers” applies to the manufacturers of packaging- it does not confer new labeling requirements on wineries. These labeling requirements refer to the packaging suppliers, and they understand that this information is already commonly provided by packaging suppliers. It is recommended that wineries understand how their packaging suppliers trace their packaging and be able to provide these details to importers as required.
The PPWR foresees new labeling in the future to inform consumers about how to dispose of containers that will require color coding to be placed on the back label, but these rules are 1-2 years away.
Supply Chain Issues
6. Does the technical documentation have to be routinely sent to importers or only provided when requested?
This will vary among importers but there is an expectation that the technical documentation be provided to the importer in advance- but that they will only supply it if requested by national authorities.
7. Suppliers are not always willing or able to share test reports/ data, and their analyses is likely not PPWR-ready. What are we to do when suppliers will not provide the necessary information or they are concerned about confidentiality of the information they provide to wineries?
This concern is understood- we will need to work through these issues and can keep in contact with the USG as issues arise.
8. This regulation establishes substance restrictions under Article 5, including PFAS-related limits, yet there is no practical consensus on:
A. Accepted testing methodologies
B. Lab protocols
C. Detection limits
D. Sampling Requirements
E. Supplier documentation expectations
9. We need publication of approved testing methodologies and safe-harbor allowance for reliance on supplier declarations where analytical testing is unavailable.
As noted above, what we can do at this time is to understand what PFAS might be present in food contact materials used by wineries and identify if there are applicable EU test methods for those substances.
10. Is there any chance that the PFAS-related enforcement will be delayed until the European Commission’s ongoing PFAS eval is completed?
Unclear at this time.
11. Most wine bottles produced in California have to have recycled content. How do wineries assert the exemption from heavy metal testing when recycled cullet is used?
Answered above.
Structural Disadvantage for Non-EU Packaging Supply
12. The Art. 6 Recyclability requirements are highly problematic for CA wines exporting because most packaging suppliers design packaging based on U.S. requirements; U.S. suppliers generally do not maintain evidence tied to EU collection and recycling infrastructure, and there’s still significant uncertainty re: what docs demonstrate compliance in this space. This requires non-EU exporters to be required to prove the existence and performance of EU recycling infrastructure while EU producers already operate w/in those systems and have easier access to evidentiary support, creating unfair trade requirements.
This concern is understood by the USG- they suggest we focus on meeting the importer requests for information now and not look too far ahead at issues like this one-which will take years to sort out. The EU standards are not yet set- they are being developed by CEN/CENELEC.
13. We need clear acceptable evidence standards; EU-maintained recyclable material lists; transitional compliance pathways; assurance that imported and EU wines will be evaluated using identical standards and evidentiary burdens.