**

Ensuring that every piece of packaging, utensil or surface that touches food complies with the relevant legislation is a non‑negotiable part of a food‑industry supply chain. For procurement managers the challenge is two‑fold: first, translating the technical and regulatory requirements into clear purchase specifications; second, confirming that a prospective supplier can reliably meet those requirements across different jurisdictions and production runs. This guide walks you through the entire process – from drafting the specification to running audits, managing incoterms and handling lead times – and finishes with three practical tips you can apply immediately.

Turning Regulations into Purchase Specifications

Regulatory frameworks differ between regions, but the core requirements are consistent: the material must not transfer harmful substances to food, must be manufactured under a documented quality system, and must be traceable. When you write the specification, include the following elements:

  • Applicable legal regime. Identify the jurisdiction(s) the product will be sold in – e.g., EU Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 for all food‑contact articles, plus the specific EU plastic regulation (Regulation (EU) 10/2011) if the material is a polymer, or the US FDA Title 21 CFR part 174‑179 for plastics and the corresponding sections for paper‑based materials.
  • Material class and intended use. State whether the item is a primary contact material (directly touching food), secondary contact (e.g., a tray that holds a primary package) or a processing aid. Include the food type (acidic, fatty, high‑temperature) and the maximum contact temperature and duration.
  • Migratory limits. Reference the specific migration limits (SML) that apply – for example, the EU’s overall migration limit of 10 mg kg⁻¹ food, or the SML for a particular substance such as bisphenol A, if it is relevant to the material.
  • Testing standards. Cite the recognised test methods you require, such as EN 1186‑1 for overall migration, EN 1186‑2 for specific migration, or ISO 22000 for the supplier’s food‑safety management system.
  • Documentation deliverables. List the certificates, test reports and declarations you expect on delivery: a Declaration of Compliance (DoC) signed by the supplier, the latest batch‑specific migration test report, and a copy of the relevant quality‑management certification (e.g., ISO 9001 or IFS Food).

Embedding these points into the technical specification removes ambiguity and provides a concrete basis for later verification.

Verifying Supplier Capability – Documents, Audits and Samples

Once you have a shortlist of potential suppliers, the verification phase should proceed in three layers: documentary review, on‑site audit (or remote equivalent), and functional sampling.

1. Documentary Review

Ask each supplier for the following before committing to an audit:

  • Current certificates for the relevant standards (e.g., ISO 22000, IFS Food, BRCGS).
  • Most recent migration test reports for the exact material and food‑type combination you intend to use. Ensure the report cites the test method (e.g., EN 1186‑1) and includes the laboratory accreditation (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025).
  • A signed Declaration of Compliance that references the specific regulation(s) and includes the supplier’s contact‑person for traceability queries.
  • Evidence of a traceability system – a batch‑to‑raw‑material matrix or a QR‑code system that links finished goods back to the raw material certificates.

Any gaps (missing test reports, outdated certificates) are red flags that should be addressed before moving forward.

2. Audits – What to Look For

If the supplier is located overseas, a remote audit using video walk‑throughs can be a first step, but a physical audit remains the gold standard for high‑risk materials. Key audit focus areas include:

  • Control of raw‑material sources. Verify that the supplier keeps certificates of analysis (CoA) for each incoming polymer, paper pulp or coating, and that they assess supplier compliance with the same regulatory framework you require.
  • Production environment. Check that the manufacturing area is segregated from non‑food‑contact production lines, that cleaning procedures are documented, and that there is no cross‑contamination risk from lubricants or cleaning agents.
  • Testing facilities. If the supplier conducts in‑house migration testing, confirm that the lab is accredited (ISO/IEC 17025) and that test methods are up‑to‑date with the latest European or FDA guidance.
  • Record‑keeping. Ensure that batch records, test reports and corrective‑action logs are retained for at least the minimum statutory period (often three years in the EU).
  • Change‑control process. A documented procedure for any change to material formulation, supplier of raw materials or production equipment is essential; each change must trigger a re‑evaluation of compliance.

Document the audit findings in a risk matrix, weighting each issue by its potential impact on food safety and regulatory compliance. Use this matrix to decide whether to accept, request remediation, or reject the supplier.

3. Sample Orders and Validation Testing

Even after a clean audit, a small pilot order is indispensable. Follow this workflow:

  1. Place an order for a limited batch that matches the final production specifications (same material thickness, printing inks, and heat‑seal parameters).
  2. Upon receipt, conduct an in‑house migration test on a representative sample using the same method you will use for commercial release (e.g., EN 1186‑1). If you lack a laboratory, contract an accredited third‑party lab.
  3. Compare the results against the supplier’s test report. Small variations are acceptable, but any exceedance of the SML or overall migration limit must trigger a corrective‑action discussion.
  4. Document the sample’s batch number, date of receipt and test outcomes; this becomes part of your compliance dossier for that product line.

Only after successful sample validation should you move to full‑scale orders.

Common Pitfalls When Sourcing from Overseas Suppliers

International sourcing introduces additional variables that can undermine compliance if not managed proactively.

Regulatory Divergence and Dual‑Market Requirements

Many manufacturers in Asia produce to both EU and US specifications, but the two regimes are not identical. For example, the EU bans certain substances that the FDA still permits, and vice‑versa. If you intend to sell in both markets, request separate test reports for each jurisdiction, and confirm that the supplier can keep parallel production lines or adjust formulations accordingly.

Inconsistent Documentation Translation

Certificates and test reports are often issued in the supplier’s native language. Relying on machine translation can miss critical nuances (e.g., “not detected” versus “below limit of detection”). Always obtain an English version that has been certified by a professional translator familiar with food‑contact terminology.

Hidden Costs in Incoterms

The choice of Incoterm directly influences who bears the risk of loss, damage and compliance verification during transit. Commonly used terms include:

  • EXW (Ex Works). The buyer assumes all transport risk and must arrange customs clearance. This can expose you to unexpected duties if the shipment is classified incorrectly.
  • FOB (Free On Board). The seller clears the goods for export, but you are responsible for freight and insurance. FOB is suitable when you have a trusted freight forwarder who can verify the cargo’s integrity.
  • DPU (Delivered at Place Unloaded). The seller delivers the goods, unloaded, at a named destination. This term reduces your exposure to handling damage, but you should still request a pre‑shipment compliance check.

For food‑contact materials, many buyers prefer FOB or DPU because the seller’s responsibility for export clearance includes ensuring that the correct documentation (e.g., the EU Declaration of Conformity) accompanies the shipment.

Lead‑Time Variability and Shelf‑Life Considerations

Materials such as biodegradable films or coated papers can experience property changes over time (e.g., loss of barrier performance). When you negotiate lead times, ask the supplier for:

  • The maximum storage period before performance degradation, backed by accelerated ageing data.
  • Clear batch‑to‑batch traceability so you can match the material’s production date to your inventory planning.
  • Contingency clauses that allow you to adjust order quantities if the supplier’s lead time exceeds the agreed window due to regulatory re‑testing.

Failing to align lead times with material shelf‑life can result in non‑compliant batches reaching the market.

Three Actionable Tips for Immediate Implementation

  • Adopt a “Compliance Checklist” for every RFQ. Include fields for regulatory regime, migration limits, test method, certification expiry dates and traceability requirements. Treat the completed checklist as a non‑negotiable part of the contract.
  • Use a third‑party compliance platform. Services that aggregate supplier certificates, automate expiry alerts and store batch‑level test reports can reduce manual effort and provide audit‑ready documentation at the click of a button.
  • Build a “Change‑Alert” protocol. Require suppliers to notify you in writing of any formulation change, new raw‑material source or updated regulatory guidance at least 30 days before implementation, and mandate a fresh compliance test before the next shipment.

FAQ

What is the difference between a Declaration of Compliance and a Declaration of Conformity? A Declaration of Compliance is a supplier‑issued statement that the specific product meets the applicable food‑contact regulations. A Declaration of Conformity, used in the EU, formally links the product to the relevant EU legislation and is often required for market surveillance.

Can I rely on a supplier’s ISO 22000 certification for food‑contact compliance? ISO 22000 ensures a robust food‑safety management system, but it does not replace specific migration testing or regulatory documentation required for food‑contact materials.

How often should migration testing be repeated? Testing should be performed for each production batch when there are material changes, new raw‑material suppliers, or after a significant process modification. For stable, long‑run production lines, annual re‑testing is common practice.

What incoterm best protects me against non‑compliant shipments? FOB or DPU are preferred because the seller retains responsibility for export compliance and can include the required certificates with the cargo, reducing the risk of receiving undocumented goods.

Is it acceptable to use a supplier’s in‑house test results? Only if the in‑house lab is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 and the test methods match the recognised standards (e.g., EN 1186). Otherwise, independent third‑party verification is advisable.

**

This article is provided for general information and education. It does not replace professional advice.