The SUPD Guidance Update: One Example, Two Frameworks

On 8 September 2026, the European Commission updated its guidelines on single-use plastic products for the first time since 2021. The update is small: one new example in one table. Its practical significance lies in how the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) now apply in parallel, with different scope tests for packaging and its components.

What changed

Commission Notice C/2026/4813 updates the SUPD guidelines of June 2021. The Notice states that the only change concerns the table of caps, lids and covers in section 4.4.2. The remaining guidance carries over from 2021. It reflects the Commission's interpretation and is non-binding.

The new example is a familiar closure format: a plastic cap used in combination with an aluminium foil lid sealed on a single-use plastic beverage container, such as an HDPE bottle for UHT milk. The table gives a separate answer for each component. The plastic cap is subject to the tethering requirement in Article 6(1) of the Directive, so it must remain attached to the container during the product's intended use. The aluminium foil lid is excluded under Article 6(2) and is outside the tethering requirement.

The tethering requirement has applied since 3 July 2024. The update clarifies how an existing obligation applies to this closure combination.

Reading the closure table correctly

The updated table works component by component. Metal closures with plastic seals, including roll-on aluminium caps, pull-ring caps and an aluminium foil lid used on its own, are excluded from the tethering requirement under Article 6(2). A plastic cap with a separate plastic seal is included. In the new cap-and-foil combination, the plastic cap is included and the aluminium foil lid is excluded.

For a packaging engineer, the closure system can therefore carry more than one regulatory answer. A change to one component can alter the requirements for that component while the rest of the assembly remains unchanged.

How SUPD and PPWR now interact

The updated SUPD Notice does not mention the PPWR. Its section on related packaging law still describes the relationship with Directive 94/62/EC, which Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 repealed with effect from 12 August 2026, subject to the transitional provisions listed in that Article.

The SUPD remains in force alongside the PPWR. Its marking, extended producer responsibility, consumption reduction and tethering rules continue to apply. Article 67 of the PPWR adds a specific hierarchy rule. Where Article 4 of the SUPD conflicts with Article 25(1) and (6) of the PPWR for the single-use plastic packaging listed in point 3 of Annex V, the PPWR prevails.

Point 3 concerns single-use plastic packaging for food and beverages filled and consumed within hotels, restaurants and catering premises. The restriction applies from 1 January 2030. It includes an exemption for establishments without access to drinking water, and Article 25(4) allows Member States to exempt micro-enterprises under the conditions stated there.

The threshold difference

The two frameworks use different scope tests for a plastic-lined paper cup.

Under the SUPD, the test is qualitative. Section 2.2.1 of the updated guidance repeats the 2021 position that there is no de minimis threshold for plastic content. A paper or board cup with a plastic coating or lining is partly made of plastic and falls within the Directive's scope.

The PPWR composite-packaging definition applies a second test. Article 3(1), point (24) provides a carve-out where one material is both an insignificant part of the packaging unit and no more than 5 percent of its total mass. Labels, varnishes, paints, inks and adhesives are excluded from that calculation. Commission Notice C/2026/3084 applies this reading to the restrictions in points 1 to 4 of Annex V and confirms that paper-based packaging containing 5 percent or more plastic is covered.

A paper cup below 5 percent plastic by total packaging weight may therefore stay outside the 2030 hospitality restriction where the plastic is also an insignificant part of the packaging unit. The same cup can remain within the SUPD because that Directive has no de minimis threshold.

Reducing the plastic share below 5 percent can affect the PPWR assessment only when the insignificance condition is also met. It does not remove SUPD duties that apply to the format.

What packaging teams should do

The following is PSL implementation practice. It is not a requirement stated in either instrument.

Before committing to a closure or material change, build a short obligations matrix for the format. Record each rule that touches it, including tethering, marking, producer responsibility, the 2030 format restrictions and recyclability. Add the markets served and the evidence held for each conclusion. Then show what the proposed change moves in each cell.

This also gives supplier statements the right role. A statement that a format contains less than 5 percent plastic addresses the quantitative part of one PPWR scope test. The file must still establish whether that material is an insignificant part of the packaging unit, and the statement does not resolve the SUPD assessment.

Key takeaways

• Notice C/2026/4813 changes one table in section 4.4.2. In the new example, the plastic cap must be tethered and the aluminium foil lid is excluded from Article 6(1).
• The closure logic runs component by component. Metal closures with plastic seals remain outside the tethering requirement under Article 6(2).
• The SUPD remains in force alongside the PPWR. Article 67 PPWR defines the hierarchy for a specific conflict involving SUPD consumption reduction and the Annex V point 3 restriction.
• The SUPD has no plastic de minimis threshold. The PPWR carve-out requires a material to be insignificant and no more than 5 percent of the packaging unit's total mass.
• A redesign can change the answer under one framework while leaving duties under the other unchanged. Map both before investing.

Cap-and-closure decisions now cross two instruments with different scope tests. PSL helps packaging teams map obligations by format and market before committing to a redesign. Book a call with us to start the conversation.

This article distinguishes binding requirements under the SUPD and the PPWR from non-binding Commission guidance and from PSL's implementation approach. It provides general information and is not legal advice for a specific product, transaction or market.