How regulation is rewriting the future of packaging inks and coatings

The packaging regulatory landscape in 2026 is anything but simple, but some overarching structure does exist. A comprehensive legislative framework already governs how materials in food contact and other packaging applications must behave. At its centre stands the EU Framework Regulation on food contact materials, complemented by chemical legislation such as REACH and CLP, as well as a growing collection of local and cross‑cutting initiatives on PFAS, microplastics, and sustainability. Rather than loosening, these requirements are steadily becoming more restrictive, making future compliance even more demanding for suppliers operating on a global scale.

The shared responsibility across the value chain

Regulatory compliance in inks and coatings is not borne by any single actor, but instead runs throughout the entire packaging value chain, encompassing raw material suppliers, ink and coating formulators, converters, and brand owners.

Raw‑material suppliers must ensure their substances meet chemical legislation such as REACH and CLP, and provide the data that downstream users rely on. Ink and coating manufacturers, in turn, must assess formulation safety, migration behaviour, and suitability for intended applications. Converters have the obligation to control how these products are used in production environments, ensuring that printing conditions respect the intended end‑use specifications. Finally, brand owners carry the ultimate responsibility for placing compliant packaging on the market, often imposing additional internal standards that exceed legal obligations. Each of these stages is interdependent, and any weak link in the chain can undermine both compliance and consumer trust.

The three pillars of the regulatory framework

In practice, compliance rests on three interconnected pillars.

The first of these is legal compliance. This includes chemical safety regulations such as REACH and CLP, as well as food contact rules such as the EU Framework Regulation and its national counterparts. For ink developers operating in multiple international markets, the lack of harmonisation across jurisdictions presents a significant complication, as regulations governing everything from migration testing to specific substance restrictions can vary from country to country. This forces complex formulation and data strategies to maintain global market access.

The second pillar is brand owner compliance. Many multinational corporations have developed their own internal chemical management policies that go beyond what the law requires. These frameworks often restrict additional substances, mandate stricter migration limits, or impose sustainability criteria that reflect corporate social responsibility and consumer expectations. Meeting these bespoke requirements has become a key differentiator for suppliers seeking preferred‑partner status within global brand portfolios.

The third pillar is self-commitment, where manufacturers voluntarily set internal standards that exceed legal and customer expectations. This may include proactive substitution of substances that could face future restrictions, investments in toxicological testing, or participation in industry stewardship programmes. This can help to mitigate risk and will better position companies to anticipate policy direction.

Towards regulatory prediction

The days when regulatory management could be reactive are over. Successful compliance now depends heavily on foresight and anticipating new developments. As well as reading the latest regulatory changes, proactivity also involves active participation in associations and industry groups, contributing to consultations, and engaging with regulators to help form realistic, science-based policies.

Early anticipation also reduces disruption. By embedding toxicological expertise and migration assessment in R&D workflows and continuously scanning the regulatory horizon, ink and coating manufacturers can design their portfolios around future requirements. Structured raw material approval systems and supplier collaboration all form part of a modern compliance strategy that turns regulatory obligations into an opportunity.

What this means on the ground

Though the growing body of regulation may seem restrictive, it can also support innovation across the print and packaging industries. Being among the first to comply (or even exceed expectations) can confer a clear commercial advantage, with customers increasingly favouring partners that can demonstrate a transparent, informed approach to chemical and packaging safety.

When compliance is integrated early into product development, it can actually accelerate the process. The reduction in late-stage surprises leads to fewer emergency reformulations and fewer product withdrawals. Science-led risk assessment can reveal safer or more efficient ways to use alternative chemistries that might otherwise be missed. Clear internal frameworks can free R&D teams to explore within well‑defined boundaries, rather than navigating shifting rules on an ad hoc basis.

It is precisely this ‘compliance and beyond’ perspective that will be explored in depth at FESPA 2026, where Evert Delbanco, Head of Global Regulatory Project Management & Group Toxicologist at Flint Group Packaging Solutions, will unpack the legal and scientific framework affecting inks and coatings. From the German Printing Ink Ordinance and PFAS bans to evolving ecolabel and chemicals‑strategy requirements, Evert will dive deep into the key changes in the ink and coatings landscape, and show how a rigorous, science‑driven approach can turn compliance from a constraint into a catalyst for innovation.

Evert’s presentation, Compliance and Beyond: Understanding the Legal Framework Affecting Inks and Coatings, will be delivered at 11:30am on Thursday, 21 May at FESPA 2026 in Barcelona.

For more information or to register for the session, go to https://europe.fespa.com/global-print-expo