Talk, AQUA FOCUS NORDICS 2026

Clean seafood, clean packaging and evidence that holds

Seafood quality will be decided by more than freshness and origin. Microplastics and PFAS enter the chain at several points, from environment and feed through processing to packaging. This talk shows where they demonstrably arrive, what EmpCo and PPWR make of that, and why fibre-based packaging below five per cent plastic is the better choice commercially as well as environmentally.

Salmon steaks on ice

Four figures from the talk

74%

of samples in the 2022 FDA seafood survey contained at least one PFAS

21 to 40 µg/kg

microplastics in the edible muscle tissue of Norwegian farmed salmon

10.3m tonnes

EU seafood consumption, 22.89 kg per capita

€908 per tonne

difference in EPR fees between paper and other composites

Where the substances enter the chain

Microplastics can enter at several points: environment, water, feed, fish, processing, packaging. PFAS are present in the environment, in feed and in processing. Independent certification does not address one point but provides evidence across the entire chain.

What the studies show

In the US FDA targeted seafood survey of 2022, at least one PFAS was detected in 60 of 81 samples, around 74 per cent. The EFSA CONTAM Panel considers fish and seafood relevant contributors to dietary PFAS exposure. A 2026 study on Atlantic salmon demonstrates PFAS transfer from feed into tissue and identifies feed as a relevant input pathway. In Norwegian farmed salmon from Hardangerfjord and Boknafjord, microplastics were detected in edible muscle tissue at 21 to 40 micrograms per kilogram.

What consumers make of it

From the same consumer study that underpins our microplastics whitepaper: 76.6 per cent know the term microplastics, concern about environmental effects sits at 4.49 out of 5 and concern about health effects at 4.13. People who receive reliable information are markedly more willing to change their behaviour.

Wild catch and aquaculture, the same need

For wild catch the control points are environmental exposure, representative catch or batch testing, production and packaging, and verification of the final product. Aquaculture adds feed and production inputs as manageable factors. Different control points, the same outcome: independently verified seafood that can also be talked about under EmpCo.

Sorting it out first

Not sure which proof counts for you?

In a free initial call we set out which rules apply to you, which proof carries them and what it requires. No preparation needed on your side.

In more detail

Why clean fish deserves clean packaging

The technology is in place: fibre-based packaging with water-based dispersion barriers stays below five per cent plastic, holds back moisture and grease, and can be built without PFAS in the barrier. Paperboard holds 90-degree coffee for an hour, and the vegetable industry has shown for decades that it also protects frozen food, even through thawing when properly designed.

The commercial part

The EU consumes around 10.3 million tonnes of seafood a year, 22.89 kilograms per capita. Material choice becomes a business case: in the German example for 2026, the EPR fee is €202 per tonne for paper, cardboard and carton against €1,110 for other composites. That is a difference of €908, roughly 82 per cent lower. Actual fees depend on the system, the volume and the specific packaging.

What gets tested is the finished packaging

Supply chains are opaque: multiple suppliers, confidential formulations, changing additives, incomplete documentation. Rather than assess every upstream stage, the finished packaging is submitted, tested, verified and certified. The result also supports the technical documentation required under PPWR.

Ten formats do not mean ten certifications

Where material and supply chain are the same, different sizes and grammages can be combined into one certification scope. The sensible order is to define that scope first and then test representatively.

Source: Malte Biss, talk at AQUA FOCUS NORDICS 2026 on 17 August 2026. Sources cited in the talk: FDA Targeted Seafood Survey 2022; EFSA CONTAM Panel (2020); Ly et al. (2026), npj Emerging Contaminants; Gomiero et al. on Norwegian farmed salmon; Janzik et al. (2026), Journal of Environmental Psychology; EUMOFA, The EU Fish Market 2025.
As of: August 2026

Editorial responsibility: Malte Biss, Managing Director of flustix GmbH

More from us

More studies and talks

Our own consumer studies, technical documents on new regulations and scientific derivations, all on one page.