Does an environmental gravure ink automatically meet food-contact safety standards?

No. Environmental indicators such as low VOC content do not replace food-contact migration testing. Food-contact safety focuses on migration limits (typically ≤0.01 mg/kg), heavy metal limits, aromatic amines, and specific risks defined by standards like GB 4806.14-2023, FDA 21 CFR 175.300 and EU 10/2011.

What are the key migration limits for food-contact gravure inks?

Key global limits include: total migration ≤10 mg/dm² (GB 4806.14-2023), heavy metals ≤1 mg/kg, aromatic amines ≤0.01 mg/kg, FDA specific migration ≤0.02 mg/kg, and EU benzophenone migration ≤0.6 mg/kg. These standards ensure inks do not transfer harmful substances to food.

Environmental Gravure Ink and Food-Contact Compliance Explained

Date: Nov 19 2025 From: Star Color Views:

Environmental gravure inks have become a core material in food packaging printing. However, a widespread misconception remains: many believe that as long as an ink meets VOC environmental requirements, it naturally meets food-contact safety standards. In reality, environmental compliance and food-contact compliance are two interconnected yet independent systems — environmental indicators address “impact on the environment,” while food-contact safety focuses on “impact on human health.”

This article analyzes the compliance logic, key limits, and practical pathways based on major global standards such as GB 4806.14-2023, FDA 21 CFR 175.300, and EU 10/2011, helping manufacturers avoid safety and export risks.

1. Fundamental Understanding: The Connection and Boundary Between Environmental Gravure Ink and Food-Contact Compliance

1.1 How Environmental Attributes Support Food-Contact Safety

Environmental gravure inks are designed for “low pollution and low emissions,” which helps reduce food-contact risks:

Water and ethanol-based ink systems contain only 10–50 g/L VOCs, eliminating carcinogenic solvents like benzene and toluene, lowering solvent migration risks.
High-molecular eco-friendly resins replace traditional rosin resins and reduce phenols, aldehydes, and other hazardous by-products.
Cleaner production processes reduce impurities such as heavy metals and microbial contamination.

Industry testing shows that inks with VOC ≤ 50 g/L achieve an 82% higher pass rate in solvent-residual migration tests compared with traditional solvent inks.

1.2 Clear Boundary: Environmental ≠ Food-Contact Compliance

Environmental indicators cannot replace migration testing or food-contact assessments. Key differences include:

Environmental rules focus on “emissions,” while food-contact standards focus on “migration into food,” typically requiring migration ≤ 0.01 mg/kg.
Some eco-friendly additives still carry migration risks—for example, benzophenone (BP) in UV-type inks must meet EU migration limits ≤ 0.6 mg/kg.
Poor pigment dispersion may lead to free pigment particles migrating into food even if VOC limits are met.

A well-known case involved a packaging company recalling 100,000 food pouches because the ink passed VOC environmental tests but failed pigment migration standards.

Gravure Ink

2. Core Compliance: Food-Contact Standards & Key Limits

2.1 China: GB 4806 Mandatory Standards

Under GB 4806.14-2023, environmental gravure inks must meet the following limits:

Total migration: ≤ 10 mg/dm² (40°C, 24 h simulated testing)
Heavy metals: total ≤ 1 mg/kg; Pb ≤ 0.1 mg/kg
Aromatic amines: ≤ 0.01 mg/kg
No detectable formaldehyde or benzene-series solvent residues
Sensory requirement: No off-odor after 40°C sealed storage for 24 hours

2.2 Key International Standards

Market	Standard	Key Requirements
United States	FDA 21 CFR 175.300	Resins/pigments must be FDA-listed; Specific migration ≤ 0.02 mg/kg; CA Prop 65: Phthalates ≤ 0.1%.
European Union	EU 10/2011	BP migration ≤ 0.6 mg/kg; 4-MBP ≤ 0.05 mg/kg; PFOA fully banned.
India	IS 15495 + BIS	VOC ≤ 50 g/L; Cd ≤ 0.001 mg/kg; Requires food-contact declaration.

2.3 Direct vs. Indirect Food Contact

Direct contact: Requires full migration testing (acidic, oily, aqueous simulants).
Indirect contact: Lower requirements but must pass anti-penetration tests; VOC ≤ 100 g/L.

3. Common Pitfalls and Compliance Risks

3.1 Misconception: “Environmental Certificates = Food Safety Certificates”

ISO 14001 or generic VOC reports do not demonstrate food-contact safety. Only CNAS/CMA or international (SGS/ITS) food-contact migration testing is valid.

3.2 Hidden Risks in Additives & Processing

UV photoinitiators must be ≤ 1.5%; prefer “reactive photoinitiators” to prevent migration.
Azo-based heavy-metal dispersants must be avoided.
Ink plants require Class 100,000 cleanroom to prevent microbial contamination.

3.3 Lack of Batch Stability Control

A real case involved an exporter whose third ink batch failed because cadmium migration rose from 0.0005 mg/kg to 0.0012 mg/kg after raw materials changed—exceeding India’s limit. Solution: introduce batch testing & traceability.

4. Conclusion: Compliance Is the Core Competitiveness

In the era of strict global food packaging regulations, environmental compliance alone is no longer sufficient. Only inks that meet food-contact migration limits can help companies enter high-end markets and export to regions such as the U.S., EU, and India.

Brands like Zhongzhixing, offering customized formulations, certified compliance, and batch-level traceability, represent the future direction of environmentally friendly and food-safe gravure inks.