You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 9, 2026

Indonesia’s Updated Regulation on Food Packaging

Subscribe to Updates

On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science.

Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits.

Overall and Specific Migration

Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows:

  • Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health.
  • Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging.

Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals

The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as a newly regulated substance, and broadens the scope of chromium testing from chromium VI (Cr(VI)) to total chromium (Cr). The specific migration limits under the 2026 Regulation are set out below:

  • Arsenic (As): Not detected (LOD 0.01 mg/kg)
  • Cadmium (Cd): Not detected (LOD 0.002 mg/kg)
  • Total Chromium (Cr): Not detected (LOD 0.01 mg/kg)
  • Lead (Pb): 0.05 mg/kg
  • Mercury (Hg): Not detected (LOD 0.01 mg/kg)

Updated Rules on Food Simulants

A food simulant is a medium used to mimic the characteristics of a particular food to simulate the migration of components from the food packaging into the food. The 2026 regulation identifies five types of food simulants for use in overall migration testing, as follows:

  • Simulant A: Ethanol 10% (v/v)
  • Simulant B: Acetic acid 3% (w/v)
  • Simulant C: Ethanol 20% (v/v)
  • Simulant D1: Ethanol 50% (v/v)
  • Simulant D2: Vegetable oil containing less than 1% unsaponifiable matter; if food simulant D2 cannot be used, 95% alcohol or isooctane may be used as an alternative food simulant
  • Simulant E: Poly (2,6-diphenyl-p-phenylene oxide), particle size 60–80 mesh, pore size 200 nm

Under the 2019 regulation, simulant D2 was defined as vegetable oil, with no specific compositional requirements. The 2026 regulation narrows this definition and provides an alternative for situations where simulant D2 cannot be used.

New Requirements for Food Product Composition

The 2026 regulation introduces new disclosure requirements for the composition of food products that may come into contact with their packaging material. The name, percentage, and function of each component must be declared, and the sum of all declared percentages must equal 100%.

New Testing Requirements for Reusable Plastic Packaging

The 2026 regulation introduces additional requirements for reusable food packaging. Reusable plastic packaging must meet both the overall and specific migration limits through the testing protocol prescribed in Annex V.

For overall migration, compliance may be demonstrated in a single test. If the first result meets the applicable limit, no further testing is required. If it does not, up to two additional tests are permitted, provided that the results show a decreasing trend, with the second result lower than the first, and the third lower than the second.

Specific migration, by contrast, requires three tests in order to simulate the repeated contact that occurs over the packaging’s service life. Each result must meet the applicable specific migration limit, and the levels must not increase across the cycles; the second result may not exceed the first, and the third may not exceed the second. Compliance depends on these results, as well as on the stability of the packaging material throughout the three testing cycles. A material is considered unstable if detectable migration increases from the first test to the third, even when the migration values remain below the applicable regulatory limit.

Because contact under single-use conditions represents the worst-case scenario for migration, test data generated under those conditions is generally understood to support compliance for repeated-use applications as well.

Transition Period

BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 provides a 12-month transition period from its promulgation date to allow food packaging products already circulating in the market to comply with the new requirements. Food packaging that was already in circulation before the regulation entered into force must be brought into compliance with the new regulation by June 30, 2027.

Business Impact

BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 updates Indonesia’s food packing rules to better respond to developments in food packaging technology and materials science. Food packaging manufacturers, importers, and brand owners in Indonesia should review existing compliance practices and test reports to confirm that packaging intended for direct food contact meets the new overall and specific migration requirements.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More