EU's New Packaging Waste Rules Spark Industry Debate Over Clarity and Gaps

The European Commission's latest guidance on packaging waste regulations has drawn mixed reactions from industry and environmental groups. While some praise its clarity and support for reuse targets, others highlight remaining gaps and uncertainties. The document aims to standardise how Member States apply the rules—but not everyone agrees on its effectiveness. The Rethink Plastic Alliance welcomed the guidance as a major step toward consistent enforcement of the regulation. It commended the Commission for reinforcing requirements to exhaust existing PFAS stocks and for clarifying the testing process for these chemicals. The Alliance also backed the mandate for deposit return schemes on single-use plastic bottles and metal containers by 2029. However, it warned against limiting national and local authorities from setting stricter waste reduction targets under the guise of Single Market harmonisation.

UPM Specialty Materials called the guidance a 'long-awaited milestone' for the packaging sector. Metsä Board praised the 5% exemption for plasticised paper-based packaging and the block on additional national bans for these materials, calling it 'great news for fibre-based packaging'. The World Packaging Organization described the document as 'valuable material' and a 'must-read' for professionals in the field. Yet criticism remains. Martin Foe, product compliance manager at Brunswick Marine, pointed to key omissions, including the lack of a methodology to detect PFAS in food-contact packaging and unclear conformity assessment procedures. Neirin Jones of GreenForest Solutions saw the guidance as a significant shift in how products can enter the European market. Meanwhile, Europen argued that the document still fails to deliver the legal certainty and operational clarity businesses need.

The guidance provides direction on packaging waste rules but leaves unresolved questions for industry and regulators. Companies must now adapt to new testing and compliance demands, while environmental groups push for stronger local measures. The Commission's next steps will determine how effectively these concerns are addressed.