Trade Perspectives©

Back

21 September 2026

The EU’s Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition raises the bar for consumer information

By Florette Peter, Stella Nalwoga, and Tobias Dolle

On 27 September 2026, Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information (hereinafter, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) Directive) will enter into application. The ECGT Directive introduces new requirements on the information to be provided to consumers concerning, inter alia, environmental claims, sustainability labels, and product durability, thereby reshaping how businesses must communicate sustainability elements to EU consumers.

This article discusses the core requirements established by the ECGT Directive, particularly on environmental claims, and assesses the business implications. 

Regulatory gaps in the EU consumer protection framework 

The EU’s consumer protection framework is underpinned by Articles 114 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which require a high level of consumer protection. Within this framework, Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (hereinafter, the UCPD) establishes harmonised rules against unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, including misleading environmental claims, and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (hereinafter, the CRD) establishes requirements on the information consumers need to be given before they purchase goods, services or digital content, such as the right to cancel online purchases. The UCPDdoes not regulate the intrinsic characteristics or composition of goods, services, or companies, but focuses exclusively on how these are presented to consumers, such as through marketing and commercial communications.

In its Proposal for the ECGT Directive, which was published in 2022, the European Commission had outlined several shortcomings in the existing EU consumer protection framework relating to commercial guarantees of durability, reparability information, ‘greenwashing’, and the premature obsolescence of goods. In particular, the CRD only required producers to provide information on ‘after sale services’ on a ‘where applicable’ basis. Although the UCPD’s general rules on misleading practices could be applied to “greenwashing practices when they negatively affect consumers, using a case-by-case assessment”, it did not contain specific rules, including in its “Annex I”, which is known as the “blacklist”, defining practices that are unfair in all circumstances. The Commission considered that this limited the effectiveness of enforcement and noted evidence of widespread misleading environmental claims, with a study finding that 53.3% of assessed environmental claims contained vague, misleading, or unfounded information about products’ environmental characteristics.

A strengthened EU consumer protection framework?

Adopted on 28 February 2024, the ECGT Directive contains targeted amendments to the UCPD and CRD. It gave EU Member States until 27 March 2026 to transpose the new amendments into their regulatory frameworks. In line with the existing approach of the UCPD and CRD, the new rules apply across sectors, unless a matter is regulated by more specific legislation, and apply exclusively to business-to-consumer commercial practices, such as marketing, labelling, and point-of-sale information occurring before, during, and after the transaction. 

As suggested by its title, the ECGT Directive introduces new measures aimed at empowering consumers for the green transition, including prohibitions on misleading sustainability and durability claims, unreliable sustainability logos, and practices linked to early obsolescence. It also introduces a host of new pre-contractual information requirements, including a mandatory harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity, and a voluntary GARAN label for the producer’s commercial guarantee of durability, where applicable. On 30 June 2026, the Commission published a Frequently Asked Questions document (hereinafter, FAQ) clarifying some requirements introduced by the ECGT Directive in order to facilitate its coherent application. 

Newly banned practices – ‘greenwashing’

According to Article 5 of the UCPD, misleading commercial practices are unfair and, therefore, prohibited, and Annex Ilists practices considered as unfair in all circumstances. The ECGT Directive significantly strengthens this framework by adding, inter alia, “displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or not established by public authorities” and “inducing the consumer to replace or replenish the consumables of a good earlier than necessary for technical reasons” to Annex I to the UCPD. 

Most notably, generic environmental claims, such as “green”, “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly” or similar statements suggesting excellent environmental performance are prohibited unless the trader can demonstrate “recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim”. Recital 9 of the ECGT Directive explains that a claim that is clearly specified, such as “100% of energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources”, is not considered a generic environmental claim. In this context, the Commission’s FAQ document notes that a claim would not be considered generic where its specification is provided “clearly and prominently on the same medium”.

The ECGT Directive also prohibits environmental claims about an entire product or business where the environmental benefit relates only to a specific aspect of the product or activity. As discussed in Recital 11 thereof, it would be misleading to market a product as “made with recycled material” where only its packaging contains recycled material. Businesses will, therefore, need to carefully consider both the wording and the level of specificity of the environmental claims made on product packaging, websites, and in related advertising.

Moving from a case-by-case assessment under Articles 6 and 7 of the ECGT Directive to an express prohibition under Article 5, means that, for the covered practices, it will no longer be necessary to establish that the communication caused, or was likely to cause, the average consumer to take a different transactional decision. This will make it considerably easier for EU Member States’ competent authorities to establish non-compliances.

Existing stock considerations

The ECGT Directive does not provide for a general transitional exemption for products or packaging already on the market. Accordingly, from 27 September 2026, environmental claims and sustainability labels, as well as circularity information provided to consumers, must comply with the new requirements, including those appearing on existing stock. The Commission’s FAQ document confirms that non-compliant stock will not necessarily have to be withdrawn or destroyed, but that corrective measures may need to be taken, such as covering or correcting claims with stickers or providing supplementary information at the point of sale. 

In June 2026, the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, a cooperation network between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, adopted a non-binding Common Understanding on old stock situations. According to the Commission, “the document aims to support a coherent and proportionate enforcement approach across the European Union during the transition to the new rules, which will apply from 27 September 2026”. National authorities agreed to take a proportionate approach to situations that concern products or packaging displaying environmental claims or sustainability labels, which were manufactured, ordered, distributed, or placed on retailers’ shelves before this date, notably where businesses face genuine transitional difficulties. On a case-by-case basis, authorities may favour a compliance-oriented approach based on businesses’ packaging cycles, stock volumes, prior orders, supply-chain constraints, and the feasibility of corrective measures. 

Way forward

The ECGT Directive significantly raises the compliance standard for businesses targeting EU consumers, starting from 27 September 2026. The application of the new rules requires the prompt and careful assessment of the wording, substantiation, and overall presentation of environmental, durability, and circularity-related communications to consumers. Despite the proportionate approach initially to be pursued by EU Member States’ competent authorities, businesses should ensure that their products are in line with the updated consumer law framework and seek expert advice to interpret and apply the new rules, as appropriate. 

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Tobias Dolle 

New Halal rules in Indonesia for natural medicines, quasi-drugs, health supplements, and genetically modified products

By Imelda Jo Anastasya, Joanna Christy, and Paolo R. Vergano

On 7 August 2026, Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Organising Agency (i.e., Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Produk Halal, hereinafter, BPJPH) notified the World Trade Organization (hereinafter, WTO) of a draft Decree on Guidelines for the Implementation of the Halal Product Assurance System for Natural Medicines, Quasi Drugs, and Health Supplements, which sets out the measures and procedures that businesses dealing with natural medicines, quasi drugs, and health supplements must implement in order to comply with Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance System. Subsequently, on 28 August 2026, the BPJPH notified the WTO of a draft Decree on Guidelines for the Implementation of the Halal Product Assurance System for Genetically Modified Products, which sets out corresponding requirements applicable to genetically modified products.

This article provides an overview of Indonesia’s regulatory framework for Halal certification, discusses the two draft Decrees, assesses the compliance of Indonesia’s Halal framework with WTO rules, and highlights the implications for businesses.

Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance System

Indonesia is gradually implementing mandatory Halal certification and labelling requirements for a wide range of products, over an eight-year period between 2026 and 2034 (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 9 September 2024). Under Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Administration of the Halal Product Assurance Sector(hereinafter, GR 42/2024), natural medicines, quasi-drugs, health supplements, and genetically modified products are among the product categories that must comply with the new rules as of 17 October 2026. Conventional pharmaceutical drugs, including over-the-counter and prescription medicines, are subject to later implementation dates, namely 17 October 2029 and 17 October 2034, respectively.

Under Article 74 of GR No. 42/2024, businesses must implement the Halal Product Assurance System, which requires domestic and imported products to comply with applicable Halal requirements. The draft Regulation on the Assessment of Halal Product Assurance System Implementation, notified to the WTO on 23 July 2026, sets out the general requirements for ensuring compliance with the system, including obtaining a Statement Letter from the BPJPH, confirming the business’ continued compliance with Halal requirements following certification, and submitting, on an annual basis, the results of internal audits and documents relating to the product’s composition and production process (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 7 September 2026).

The draft Decrees further provide sector-specific guidelines for natural medicines, quasi-drugs, health supplements, as well as genetically modified products. The guidelines are aimed at helping businesses comply with the Halal Product Assurance System. Separate guidelines are expected to be developed for other product groups that are also subject to Halal certification requirements. Despite being named “Guidelines”, which suggests their non-binding nature, the draft Decrees contain provisions that impose binding requirements on businesses. 

The draft Decrees, unpacked

Chapter II of both draft Decrees sets out the scope and definition of natural medicines, quasi-drugs, health supplements, as well as genetically modified products. For instance, natural medicines are defined as referring to drugs derived from natural resources, with standardised herbal medicines being examples of products falling within such category. These provisions provide greater clarity as to the products falling within each category, as the exact scope and relevant definitions were not previously provided for under GR No. 42/2024.

Chapter III of the draft Decrees sets out the same guidelines for implementing the Halal Product Assurance System, albeit for the specific product groups. In particular, businesses would be required to establish an internal Halal policy, consisting of a written statement setting out its commitment to ensuring that relevant Halal products obtain Halalcertification and remain compliant with the applicable Halal requirements following certification. The Halal policy must be disseminated and communicated to all relevant parties, including personnel. For products subject to Halal certification, businesses must ensure that product materials are not derived from substances prohibited under Islamic law (e.g., alcohol and pork), and that equipment and production facilities used for the processing, storage, and packaging are separated from those used for non-Halal products.

Products seeking Halal certification may, however, be manufactured in the same production facility alongside products for which Halal certification is not required, provided that the latter are not derived from materials containing prohibited substances and that additional documents, such as cleaning procedures, are submitted to the BPJPH when applying for a Halal certificate. Following Halal certification, the product’s packaging must bear Indonesia’s official Halal label and must not be made from or contain non-Halal materials. Where non-compliance is identified, including where certified products are subsequently found to be non-compliant with Halal requirements, businesses must implement appropriate measures, such as recalling such products from the market and destroying such products.

International standards: Compliance or divergence?

The implementation of Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance System has raised significant concerns among Indonesia’s trading partners, notably regarding its potential divergence from international standards, such as, for food products, the Codex Alimentarius General Guidelines for Use of the Term “Halal” (hereinafter, CAC/GL 24-1997). Under CAC/GL 24-1997, Halal and non-Halal products may, inter alia, be processed at the same facility, provided that measures are in place to prevent cross-contamination and that equipment is properly cleansed in accordance with Islamic law. By contrast, Indonesia’s Halal legislation, including the draft Decrees, goes beyond such requirements by requiring businesses to ensure that Halal and non-Halal products are not processed at the same facility, even where measures to prevent cross-contamination and to ensure proper cleansing are in place.

Such divergences may raise concerns under Articles 5.1.2 and 5.4 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade(hereinafter, TBT Agreement). Article 5.1.2 requires WTO Members to ensure that conformity assessment procedures (hereinafter, CAPs) are not prepared, adopted or applied so as to create “unnecessary obstacles to international trade”, including by being more strict than necessary to provide adequate confidence that products conform with the applicable requirements. Article 5.4 further requires Members to use relevant international guides or recommendations, or the relevant parts thereof, as a basis for their CAPs, unless such guides or recommendations are inappropriate for the Members concerned for specified reasons.

Permitting Halal and non-Halal products to be processed in the same facility, subject to measures to prevent cross-contamination and ensure that equipment is properly cleansed in accordance with Islamic law, as provided under CAC/GL 24-1997, may be considered to provide an adequate level of assurance as to the Halal status of the products. Singapore’s Halal certification framework similarly permits shared premises in certain circumstances, subject to segregation and cross-contamination controls. Accordingly, Indonesia’s requirement for separate equipment and production facilities for Halal and non-Halal products, even where measures to prevent cross-contamination and ensure proper cleansing are in place, could be considered more strict than necessary to provide adequate confidence that products conform with the applicable Halal requirements under Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement. Although Indonesia’s Halal legislation is aligned with most aspects of CAC/GL 24-1997, including requirements relating to Halal labelling, Indonesia would need to demonstrate why the relevant provisions of CAC/GL 24-1997 concerning shared production facilities are “inappropriate” for Indonesia within the meaning of Article 5.4 of the TBT Agreement. 

Next steps

WTO Members have until 6 October 2026 to comment on the draft Decree on natural medicines, quasi-drugs, health supplements, and until 27 October 2026 to submit comments on the draft Decree on genetically modified products. WTO Members should consider submitting comments by the respective deadlines, including with respect to any potential implications for international trade. In parallel, businesses should monitor developments concerning the enactment and implementation of the draft Decrees. Once enacted, businesses must ensure compliance with the Halal requirements throughout the certification process and continue to comply with the Halal framework following certification.

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano

Pesticide residue limits and market access: The EU’s evolving approach and harmonisation across ASEAN

By Alya Mahira, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, and Paolo R. Vergano

Recent developments in the EU and within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (hereinafter, ASEAN) highlight different approaches to regulating pesticide residues in food and their implications for market access. While ASEAN continues its efforts to harmonise maximum residue levels (hereinafter, MRLs), the EU appears to be moving towards “stronger import rules for pesticide residues”, as reflected in the European Commission’s Proposal to lower certain MRLs for hazardous pesticides in imported products, as part of its Food and Feed Safety Simplification Package.

This article examines the approaches to pesticide MRLs regulation in the EU and within ASEAN, discusses the consistency of the EU’s MRLs approach with the World Trade Organization’s (hereinafter, WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (hereinafter, SPS Agreement), and highlights the implications for businesses.

The EU’s proposed reform of pesticide residue limits for imported products 

An MRL is the highest level of a pesticide residue legally permitted in or on food or feed. In the EU, under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin, a general default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg applies, where no specific MRL has been established. This default corresponds to the limit of quantification (hereinafter, LoQ), which refers to the lowest residue level that can be reliably measured. Under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, import tolerances may be established for pesticide residues resulting from uses authorised in third countries, even where those pesticides are not approved for use within the EU. Import tolerances are typically established based on third-country good agricultural practices (hereinafter, GAPs) or Codex Alimentarius MRLs, and are assessed primarily on the basis of consumer safety.

On 16 December 2025, the European Commission presented a Proposal under the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Package, aiming to “pursue a stronger alignment of production standards applied to imported products, notably on pesticides” and to “establish a principle that the most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU for health and environmental reasons are not allowed back to the EU through imported products”. The Proposal foresees to amend Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 to allow existing MRLs, which vary depending on third-country GAPs or Codex MRLs, to be lowered to the LoQ (i.e., 0.01 mg/kg), or “technical zero”, for certain hazardous pesticides not approved for use in the EU, subject to an impact assessment. 

Trade implications of lower import MRLs: Findings of the JRC’s Technical Report 

On 11 August 2026, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (hereinafter, JRC) published a Technical Reportassessing the economic impacts of the Proposal. The Technical Report finds that reducing existing MRLs to the LoQ would render imports containing detectable residues non-compliant with EU requirements. As a result, exporters in third countries that continue to use the affected pesticides could face increased compliance costs, might need to adapt their production practices, or might risk losing access to the EU market. The Technical Report estimates that EU agricultural imports could decline by up to 41%, while imports are only estimated to decline between 8% or 0.4% in case third country exporters were to be able to adapt their production practices at higher or lower adaptation costs, respectively.

The Technical Report further emphasises that impacts are likely to vary considerably across active substances, commodities, and exporting countries, notably due to differences in the availability of alternative pesticides and adaptation costs. Therefore, the Technical Report highlights the need for further substance-, commodity-, and country-specific assessments, as the effects of lowering MRLs to the general default depend heavily on adaptation costs and the availability of alternative pesticides.

The EU’s approach to MRLs: Inconsistency with WTO rules?

The EU’s approach to MRLs has been repeatedly criticised by several WTO Members, which argue that lowering MRLs to the default level departs from the Codex standards and raises concerns under Articles 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, and 5.6 of the WTO’s SPS Agreement, notably as regards the scientific justification and the consistency with international standards (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 8 of 22 April 2024 and Issue No. 6 of 23 March 2026). The European Commission’s new Proposal prompted similar concerns. WTO Members, such as the US, Indonesia, and Australia, questioned the Proposal, arguing that producers in third countries already comply with internationally recognised standards and that lowering MRLs for certain pesticides below those standards could undermine the EU’s risk-based MRL framework and disrupt international trade.

The implications for EU market access could be significant. Products that comply with the EU’s current import tolerances or Codex MRLs could become non-compliant, requiring exporters to adapt their production practices to EU requirements or potentially forgo the EU market. This raises the broader issue of whether, and to what extent, the EU may require imported products to comply with EU production standards. This is part of the broader debate over so-called ‘mirror clauses’, which aim at ensuring “that imported products are subject to the manufacturing standards in force within the EU” (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 3 of 14 February 2022).

With respect to MRLs, the recent Proposal reflects an intention to address perceived double standards, whereby food or feed containing residues of substances banned for use in the EU may nevertheless be placed on the EU market. While the EU presents the measure as necessary to “ensure a level playing field” for its farmers, in practice it imposes stricter default MRL requirements than international standards, burdening third‑country exporters and creating trade barriers through a de facto ban on those substances and products treated therewith. 

ASEAN’s approach to harmonising MRLs

In ASEAN, pesticide MRLs are harmonised regionally under the Principle for Harmonisation of ASEAN MRLs, which promotes the adoption of Codex MRLs, where available and applicable. Where no relevant Codex MRL exists, ASEAN Member States may propose new MRLs for consideration by the ASEAN Expert Working Group on the Harmonisation of Maximum Residue Limits of Pesticides (hereinafter, EWG-MRLs). Most recently, at the 30th meeting of the EWG-MRLs, held from 11 to 13 May 2026 to “strengthen MRLs harmonisation on agricultural commodities within the ASEAN region”, 13 new ASEAN-harmonised MRLs were approved, seven of which are based on existing Codex MRLs. These MRLs are expected to be endorsed at the 48th meeting of the ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) in October 2026. Following endorsement, they will be formally adopted and implemented by ASEAN Member States through their respective national regulatory frameworks.

On 27 May 2026, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter, FDA) advised food business operators to prepare for the forthcoming implementation of the 13 approved ASEAN MRLs, which would be incorporated into the Thai legal framework through Schedule 2 annexed to Notification of the Ministry of Public Health (No. 460) B.E. 2568 Regarding Food Containing Pesticide Residues. This development reflects ASEAN’s broader effort to reduce regulatory divergence in residue standards, thereby facilitating market access and promoting regional trade.

Implications for businesses operating across markets

While ASEAN continues to promote the adoption of Codex MRLs, the EU appears to be increasingly moving towards MRLs that are stricter than international standards. For businesses operating across multiple markets, such divergence can increase regulatory complexity and compliance costs. It also highlights the importance of continued international cooperation on pesticide regulation, including through the Codex Alimentarius. Against this background, the proposal should be carefully assessed to ensure consistency with the EU’s WTO commitments and to avoid creating unnecessary barriers to trade.

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano

Recently adopted EU legislation

Trade Law

Trade Remedies

Food Law

Other

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.