7 September 2026
- Unpacking another layer of the EU’s new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: EPR obligations and forthcoming implementing rules
- Ready to comply? Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Organising Agency issues new rules ahead of 17 October 2026 compliance deadline
- Meat means meat: New EU rules on meat and meat product designations enter into force
- Recently adopted EU legislation
Unpacking another layer of the EU’s new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: EPR obligations and forthcoming implementing rules
By Florette Peter, Stella Nalwoga, and Tobias Dolle
On 12 August 2026, the EU’s Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (hereinafter, Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, PPWR) started to apply throughout the EU.
This article discusses a number of questions arising from the application of the PPWR, the discussions regarding extended producer responsibility (hereinafter, EPR) obligations, and the timeline for further PPWR implementation.
Assurance for businesses
Adopted in December 2024 to replace the EU’s Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, the PPWR harmonises packaging rules across the EU and introduces new requirements covering the entire packaging lifecycle. From product design to recycling governance, the new framework aims at minimising the quantities of packaging and waste generated, as well as reducing the use of primary raw materials in production.
In the months leading up to 12 August 2026, many affected businesses voiced concerns about compliance risks, with some industry groups calling for a grace period to ensure a smooth transition. In anticipation of the application, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) published in March 2026 a Guidance Document and in July 2026 a series of updated Frequently Asked Questions to support PPWR implementation (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 13 of 29 June 2026).
With regard to enforcement, the European Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, Jessika Roswall, confirmed on 25 August 2026 that “Only packaging that has not been placed on the EU market by 12 August 2026 must comply with the requirements” of the PPWR. Commissioner Roswall further stated that, for packaging that “has already been produced but not yet placed on the market” before 12 August 2026, labelling requirements could be complied with “by means of an accompanying document” and that these packaging “must neither be destroyed, remanufactured or re-labelled”.
Key area of concern: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
One area in which significant implementation concerns persist relates to the PPWR obligations on extended producer responsibility (EPR). EPR, as defined in Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (hereinafter, Waste Framework Directive) refers to “a set of measures taken by Member States to ensure that producers of products bear financial responsibility or financial and organisational responsibility for the management of the waste stage of a product’s life cycle”. Under Article 45 of the PPWR, EPR obligations fall on the producer of packaging, which must register with and participate in the national EPR scheme of each EU Member State where it places packaging on the market. If the producer is not established in an EU Member State where it places packaging on the market, it must appoint a local authorised representative to act on its behalf.
The PPWR harmonises certain aspects of EPR, such as the definition of ‘producer’, the requirement for producers to register in national registers, and the reporting format and data. At the same time, the establishment and operation of national registers remain a competence of the individual EU Member States. In the updated FAQ document, the Commission notes that EU Member States “can require information beyond what is established in the PPWR, as long as it is necessary and proportionate” for the purpose of monitoring EPR compliance.
This decentralised approach to EPR implementation is consistent with several other EU regulatory frameworks, such as under Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries. However, according to the Commission’s Communication on a Strategy for the Single Market of 21 May 2025, the “lack of uniformity […] has led to a large diversity of EPR schemes set up in Member States, regulatory complexity and high administrative burden for companies”, noting that “the obligation to appoint authorised representatives” is considered a “real hurdle”. Businesses also highlighted the costs linked to the requirement to “register in that country’s producer register, specify the packaging materials used, [and] report quantities and pay fees, separately in each Member State”, and warned that “micro-enterprises are therefore ceasing deliveries to other Member States.”
In light of these concerns, the Commission has embarked on a process to simplify some of the EPR requirements, in particular the need to appoint an authorised representative. Notably, on 16 December 2025, the Commission had presented its ‘Environmental Omnibus’ simplification package of measures, which included, inter alia, legislative proposals aimed at suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorised representative for EPR under the PPWR, as well as for other EU regulatory frameworks containing EPR obligations, until 1 January 2035. Referring to this initiative, Commissioner Roswall stated on 2 September 2026 that “negotiations with the co-legislators are ongoing”. In parallel, according to a report by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, the Commission’s legislative proposal for a Circular Economy Act expected by the end of 2026 would include, inter alia, provisions that “fundamentally redesign the regulatory architecture governing EPR” under various EU frameworks, including the PPWR.
A framework that is still taking shape
12 August 2026 was only the beginning of a gradual implementation process, and businesses should already prepare for the next stages. In fact, the various obligations under the PPWR will be progressively implemented between 2026 and 2040. In this regard, the PPWR mandates the Commission to adopt various delegated and implementing acts that will determine how some of the core requirements will operate in practice. These measures concern, inter alia: design-for-recycling criteria and recyclability performance grades; minimum recycled content targets for different packaging formats; a minimum number of rotations for reusable packaging; harmonised labels containing information on the material composition of packaging; and re-use targets for transport, sales, and grouped packaging.
In light of the preparation of certain delegated and implementing acts, from 14 August 2026 to 16 September 2026, the Commission is holding a call for evidence to support the harmonisation of rules for calculating and verifying recycled content in plastic packaging, the establishment of sustainability criteria for plastic recycling technologies, and the determination of the conditions for importing recycled materials into the EU for use in packaging, as the PPWR requires the relevant acts to be adopted by 31 December 2026.
Further developments are also expected regarding substances of concern (SoC). Article 5 of the PPWR already requires the presence and concentration of such substances to be “minimised”, while restrictions on per– and polyfluoroalkylsubstances (PFAS) in food-contact packaging started applying on 12 August 2026. In September 2026, the European Chemicals Agency (hereinafter, ECHA) is expected to submit a report to the Commission on substances of concern in packaging and their effects on safety, re-use, and recycling. Based on the ECHA report, the Commission is to adopt design for recycling criteria and recyclability performance grades by 1 January 2028, as well as digital marking rules by 1 January 2030.
Next steps
Though the PPWR has started to apply, a broad range of rules that will ultimately determine its practical impact are still being developed and will gradually come into place over the coming years. Relevant stakeholders are, therefore, encouraged to participate in ongoing and forthcoming public consultations concerning both the PPWR and the Circular Economy Act. Businesses should also closely monitor the adoption of delegated and implementing acts under the PPWR, and, where appropriate, seek expert advice to ensure full compliance and mitigate risk.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Tobias Dolle
Ready to comply? Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Organising Agency issues new rules ahead of 17 October 2026 compliance deadline
By Alya Mahira, Imelda Jo Anastasya, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 23 July 2026, Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Organising Agency (i.e., Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Produk Halal, hereinafter, BPJPH) circulated a draft Regulation on the Assessment of Halal Product Assurance System Implementation and a draft Regulation on the Renewal of Halal Certificates to the World Trade Organization’s (hereinafter, WTO) Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereinafter, TBT). Subsequently, on 10 August 2026, the BPJPH enacted Regulation No. 4 of 2026 on Ensuring the Compliance of Foreign Halal-Certified Products Entering Indonesia (hereinafter, BPJPH Regulation No. 4/2026), which will enter into force on 10 September 2026. These draft legal instruments and the new Regulation aim at supporting the implementation of the Halal certification and labelling requirements under Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Administration of the Halal Product Assurance Sector(hereinafter, GR 42/2024), which will take effect in October 2026 for certain product categories.
This article provides an overview of Indonesia’s regulatory framework for Halal certification, discusses the draft legal instruments and BPJPH Regulation No. 4/2026, assesses their compliance with WTO rules, and highlights the implications for businesses.
Indonesia’s phased implementation of mandatory Halal certification and labelling
Indonesia is gradually implementing mandatory Halal certification for a wide range of products over an eight-year period from 2026 to 2034. Under GR No. 42/2024, as of 17 October 2026, food and beverage products, natural drugs, quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical products, genetically engineered products, clothing, certain household goods, and “Class A” medical devices will be required to obtain Halal certification, certifying that the product is permissible under Islamic law and bear a Halal label. The Halal certificate may be obtained from the BPJPH or from a foreign Halal certification body recognised by the BPJPH on the basis of a Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 9 September 2024).
In preparation of the compliance deadline, the BPJPH has been developing various regulations to support the implementation of the GR No. 42/2024, including a Regulation on the Format and Procedures for the Affixing of Non-Halal Statements, which was issued on 23 July 2026 (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 5 of 9 March 2026). The draft legal instruments recently circulated to the WTO TBT Committee set out additional requirements on: 1) The assessment of compliance with the Halal Product Assurance System; and 2) The renewal of Halal Certificates where there are changes to the product composition or the production processes. Separately, BPJPH Regulation No. 4/2026 sets out additional requirements concerning procedures for verifying the compliance of foreign Halal-certified products to be placed on the market.
Implementation of the Halal Product Assurance System
Under the draft Regulation on the Assessment of Halal Product Assurance System Implementation, businesses that have obtained a Halal certificate from the BPJPH would be required to comply with the Halal Product Assurance System, under which businesses must ensure their products’ continued compliance with Halal requirements following certification. Following certification, a business must obtain a Statement Letter from the BPJPH, confirming its continued compliance with Halal requirements. The letter will remain valid for four years. A business will also be required to submit, on an annual basis, internal audit results and documents relating to the product’s composition and production process through the SiHalal system.
To obtain a Statement Letter, businesses need to undergo an inspection of their Halal-related documents and production processes based on their “level of risk” (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 14 of 16 July 2021). “High-risk” businesses would be subject to on-site inspections, “medium-risk” businesses would be subject to remote inspections conducted via video call, and “low-risk” businesses would conduct self-inspections. Where the inspection confirms that the product and its production process comply with Halal requirements, the BPJPH shall issue the letter. Notably, the draft Regulation does not specify when these requirements must be fulfilled, creating uncertainty as to whether businesses would be subject to a further assessment immediately after certification or only at a later stage. Clarification from the BPJPH is needed to ensure that the requirement does not duplicate the assessment already conducted for the Halal certification.
Under the draft Regulation on the Renewal of Halal Certificates, businesses that change the composition of materials and/or their production processes after having obtained a Halal certificate from the BPJPH would be required to renew their certificate. To obtain the renewed certificate, businesses would be required to notify the BPJPH of such changes by submitting supporting documents through the SiHalal system, notably an overview of the changed materials. The BPJPH would then review the submitted documents against the updated product composition and/or production process. Where the documents are complete and satisfy the applicable Halal requirements, the renewed certificate would be issued.
Depending on the nature of the change, the BPJPH may require the product composition and production process to undergo inspection by a Halal auditor appointed by a Halal Inspection Body. Annex I to the draft Regulation sets out the full list of changes requiring further inspection, including, for example, the introduction of an additional step into the production process.
Ensuring the compliance of foreign Halal-certified products entering Indonesia
BPJPH Regulation No. 4/2026, which will enter into force on 10 September 2026, introduces an additional requirement for foreign products certified as Halal by both the BPJPH and a BPJPH-approved foreign Halal certification body. In particular, they will be subject to a further inspection at the loading warehouse before shipment to Indonesia. The importer will have to bear the costs associated with such inspection, which will be conducted by a Halal Inspection Bodyappointed by the BPJPH. The inspection will, inter alia, verify whether the product conforms to the applicable Halalcertification requirements and bears the required Halal label. Where the products comply with the relevant Halalrequirements, a Halal Product Assurance Report would be issued as evidence of compliance. The report will be valid for one shipment only, meaning that every shipment requires a separate inspection and related report. The report will need to be submitted through the Indonesia National Single Window as part of the Customs clearance process.
From an international trade law perspective, inspections and testing requirements are considered as “conformity assessment procedures” (hereinafter, CAP) under Annex 1 to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and are subject to Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement. This provision requires CAPs not to be prepared, adopted, or applied with a view to or with the effect of “creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade”. In particular, CAPs must not be more “strict than necessary” to give the importing WTO Member adequate confidence that products comply with the relevant requirements.
A violation of Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement may arise where an available alternative measure that is less strict would make an equivalent contribution to achieving the relevant regulatory objective. Arguably, the existing Halalcertification process should already provide assurance of compliance with Halal requirements and requiring a separate on-site inspection in the country of origin for every shipment, including in the absence of any evidence of non-compliance, appears redundant, unnecessary, and disproportionate. Rather than providing any additional regulatory assurance, it would only impose greater logistical and financial burdens on traders, as importers would be responsible for arranging and bearing the costs of inspections at loading warehouses in the country of origin. It is also not comprehensible why such an inspection would only be valid for a specific shipment and not for a certified product type from a given business. Therefore, this requirement would likely be considered stricter than necessary under Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement.
Next steps
WTO Members have until 21 September 2026 to comment on the draft Regulation on Assessment of Halal Product Assurance System Implementation and the Renewal of Halal Certificates. WTO Members should consider submitting comments by the respective deadlines, particularly regarding the necessity of the requirements and their potential to create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. In parallel, businesses should monitor developments concerning the enactment and implementation of the draft instruments.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Meat means meat: New EU rules on meat and meat product designations enter into force
By Amanda Carlota, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 18 August 2026, Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 July 2026 amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 as regards the strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain entered into force. Among other measures, Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 amends Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (hereinafter, CMO Regulation) by introducing meat and meat product designations, namely a list of 31 specific terms reserved for products of animal origin, thereby restricting their use for plant-based and cultivated food alternatives in order not to mislead consumers as to the characteristics of the food concerned, which include its nature and composition.
This article outlines the EU framework for the marketing of meat products, provides an overview of the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1739, and highlights the implications for food business operators.
EU rules on marketing of meat products
EU marketing standards for agri-food products are laid down in the CMO Regulation, which establishes the rules concerning marketing standards, definitions, designations, sales descriptions, eligibility criteria, and optional reserved terms for a broad range of agricultural sectors (e.g., meats, fruit and vegetables, milk, sugars). The CMO Regulation is intended to promote fair competition, facilitate the functioning of the internal market, and provide consumers with clear and accurate information about agricultural products. For the meat sector, the CMO Regulation has traditionally contained only limited rules on product designations. In particular, Annex VII to the CMO Regulation contained only general sales descriptions for meat from bovine animals, such as ‘veal’, ‘steak’, or ‘bacon’.
The controversy over ‘meaty’ names for plant-based products
The use of traditionally animal-derived names for plant-based food has been the subject of debate for several years. For plant-based dairy names, such as ‘milk’ or ‘yoghurt’, the debate was mostly settled on 14 June 2017, when the Court of Justice of the EU (hereinafter, CJEU) held in the TofuTown case (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 13 of 30 June 2017) that, in principle, purely plant-based products may not be marketed with designations such as ‘milk’, ‘cream’, ‘butter’, ‘cheese’, or ‘yoghurt’, which are reserved for animal-derived products under the EU’s CMO Regulation. For meat products, EU law did not, until now, reserve certain meat-related terms exclusively for products of animal origin. Unlike the regime applicable to dairy names, EU Member States, therefore, retained discretion to define legal names for meat products under their respective national legislation.
The limits of what individual EU Member States may do in the absence of EU-wide rules on terms reserved for meat products were clarified on 4 October 2024 by the CJEU in a preliminary ruling concerning France’s Decree No. 2022-947 of 29 June 2022 on the use of certain names used to designate foodstuffs containing vegetable proteins (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 14 of 18 July 2022). The CJEU ruled that EU Member States may not prohibit the use of commonly used terms if they are not defined by law. As a result, EU Member States were not permitted to restrict manufacturers of plant-based products from using ‘meaty’ terms, such as ‘steak’.
Key provisions on meat and meat product designations
On 30 July 2025, the European Commission had presented its Proposal for Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 as part of a broader review of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 8 September 2025). Following the EU legislative process, Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 was published on 29 July 2026 and entered into force on 18 August 2026. The rules contained therein mark a significant shift in the EU approach to meat-related designations. Recital 29 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 sets out the consumer protection rationale for reserving meat-related terms, noting, in relevant part, that “Meat-related terms often carry cultural and historical significance”, and that it was “appropriate to protect meat-related terms in order to enhance transparency in the internal market as regards food composition and nutritional content” in order to ensure that “consumers can make well-informed choices, particularly for those seeking a specific nutritional content that is traditionally associated with meat products”.
In this context, Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 foresees the addition of a new Part Ia on “Meat and meat products designations” to Annex VII to the CMO Regulation, which defines ‘meat’ as “the edible parts of an animal” and ‘meat products’ as “products derived from meat on the understanding that substances necessary for their manufacture can be added provided that those substances are not used for the purpose of replacing, in whole or in part, any meat constituent”. Most significantly, Part la reserves the term “meat” and 31 further specific terms typically used for meat and meat products to “designate the animal species from which an agricultural product originates, at all stages of marketing”. The protected terms include beef, veal, pork, poultry, chicken, turkey, duck, goose, lamb, mutton, ovine, goat, drumstick, tenderloin, sirloin, flank, loin, ribs, shoulder, shank, chop, wing, breast, thigh, brisket, ribeye, T-bone, rump, bacon, steak, and liver.
To effectuate the consumer protection objective of the amendment, Part Ia prohibits the use of the term ‘meat’ and the reserved 31 terms to “designate food consisting of, isolated from or produced from cell culture or tissue culture derived from animals, plants, micro-organisms, fungi or algae” within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods. As a result, plant-based and cultivated alternatives may not be marketed using the terms reserved for products of animal origin.
Part Ia permits businesses to use term “meat” and the reserved 31 terms in “combination to designate meat products”. Businesses may also use the reserved terms as part of the name of a composite product, which refers to foodstuffs containing both products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin, provided that “no part takes or is intended to take the place of any meat constituent and of which meat is an essential part either in terms of quantity or for characterisation of the product”.
From national restrictions to EU-wide harmonisation
The introduction of EU-wide reserved meat-related designations under Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 amends the legal framework considered by the CJEU in its judgment of 4 October 2024 concerning France’s Decree No. 2022-947. In particular, Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 addresses the regulatory gap identified in that judgment by defining ‘meat’ and ‘meat products’ at the EU level and establishing conditions governing the use of the term ‘meat’ and the 31 reserved terms. Once Part Ia becomes applicable, restrictions on the use of the reserved meat-related terms will derive directly from harmonised EU law, rather than from national measures adopted by individual EU Member States.
In this respect, the amendments bring the meat sector closer to the approach already applicable to certain dairy designations under the CMO Regulation, as recognised by the CJEU in TofuTown. More broadly, the new rules should reduce the scope for divergent national approaches to meat-related designations and provide food business operators with a uniform framework across the EU internal market.
Implications for food business operators
Reserving meat-related names for products of animal origin will have important commercial implications for the rapidly growing market for plant-based and alternative protein products. In 2025, plant-based food and drink sales in Europe’s six largest markets amounted to EUR 16.3 billion, representing annual growth of 5.1% compared to 2024 and confirming that plant-based products have become an established segment of the European food market.
Food business operators have extensively relied on familiar meat-related terminology, such as ‘steak’ or ‘bacon’, to communicate the intended use, taste, texture, and functional characteristics of plant-based alternatives to consumers. Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 will, therefore, require substantial adjustments to product branding, packaging, labelling, and marketing strategies, potentially generating additional compliance and rebranding costs for manufacturers, retailers, and food-service operators.
In view of these required changes, food business operators will have until 19 August 2029 to adapt their product names, labelling, packaging and marketing strategies to comply with the new rules. Business will, however, benefit from a gradual phase-out of products that do not comply with the new designation rules. Products made or imported into the EU before 18 August 2026 that do not meet the new requirements may continue to be sold until 19 August 2032, or until existing stocks run out, whichever occurs first.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Recently adopted EU legislation
Trade Law
Trade Remedies
Customs Law
Food Law
Other
Amanda Carlota, Alya Mahira, Florette Peter, Imelda Jo Anastasya, Joanna Christy, Paolo R. Vergano, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, Stella Nalwoga, and Tobias Dolle contributed to this issue.
Follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social
To subscribe to Trade Perspectives©, please click here. To unsubscribe, please click here.