November 2020
Primary Food Processors (PFP) expressed strong concerns regarding the draft 22nd Ordinance amending the German Consumer Goods Ordinance and called for a harmonised, science based European approach to addressing Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH) in food.
The proposal notified by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture under the Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS) seeks to amend Article 6 of the German Consumer Goods Ordinance concerning food contact materials made from paper, paperboard and cardboard containing recycled paper.
PFP joined other stakeholders in expressing concerns regarding the proposal and stressed that consumer protection and the free movement of goods within the European Single Market should be achieved through a uniform, proportionate and scientifically robust European framework rather than through divergent national legislation.
The organisation noted that MOAH contamination may originate from multiple sources throughout production and processing chains. According to PFP, packaging is not always the source of contamination, products may already contain contamination before packaging, and functional barriers alone cannot eliminate all contamination pathways.
PFP also highlighted that industry has already implemented numerous measures to address mineral oil contamination risks, including sector guidelines, industry toolboxes, best practices and benchmark values developed through cooperation across the value chain.
The organisation further warned that important analytical challenges remain unresolved. Industry studies and proficiency tests indicate that detecting MOAH near the proposed threshold remains highly complex, with risks of false positive results, analytical uncertainty and difficulties associated with complex food matrices.
PFP noted that no official analytical method currently exists that can reliably determine the precise source of contamination or distinguish between the various possible MOAH entry routes.
The association also expressed concerns regarding the economic consequences of the proposal. According to PFP, implementation could create substantial compliance costs for manufacturers and importers, introduce additional barriers to trade, increase regulatory fragmentation and negatively affect the functioning of the European Single Market.
PFP further argued that the proposal is not sufficiently aligned with ongoing European initiatives and scientific work. The organisation pointed to ongoing EU monitoring programmes, EFSA risk assessment activities and future legislative reviews already planned under the Farm to Fork Strategy.
The association also highlighted potential conflicts with European sustainability objectives. Increased reliance on barrier materials and composite packaging solutions could undermine circular economy goals, recycling targets and broader environmental objectives established under the European Green Deal.
PFP therefore called for a coordinated European framework based on scientific evidence, proportionality and harmonisation rather than fragmented national approaches.
PFP members process approximately 220 million tonnes of raw materials and employ more than 120,000 people across the European Union.
