Europe as a shield for our economy: the EU makes the right choice for European logistics

• February 26, 2026 • by Joseph TAYEFEH

This is a breath of fresh air for our industry and a resounding victory for economic reality over punitive ideology.

On February 25, 2026, the European Commission officially adopted a delegated decision, signed by the President of the Commission herself, granting a historic exemption. Economic operators using pallet wrapping film and strapping are now exempt from the untenable 100% reuse requirement imposed by Regulation (EU) 2025/40.

Trying to eradicate single-use plastic without taking industrial realities into account is a recipe for disaster. Today, the facts prove us right.

The wall of economic reality

The regulation initially stipulated that, from 2030 onwards, economic operators using these transport packaging formats would have to aim for 100% reuse for transport within the same company or between related or partner companies within the EU, as well as for transport between companies within the same Member State.

A technical and financial aberration for securing pallets!

Faced with the evidence, the Commission had to use its power of derogation provided for in Article 29(18), citing the "particular economic constraints" of our sector. And with good reason, as the figures speak for themselves and shatter the sweet illusions of degrowth:

600,000 logistics companies in the EU would have been hit hard by Articles 29(2) and (3) of this regulation.
610 million euros: that is the astronomical estimate of the initial costs that these logistics companies alone would have had to bear. And this figure does not even take into account the manufacturing sector, which would have caused the overall bill to skyrocket!
Unjustifiable additional costs: These expenses would have been used to maintain duplicate packaging lines, purchase new, overpriced automated machines, replace computer equipment, and train staff.

The admission of failure of "magic technology"

Even more telling, the European text implicitly admits that the legislative rush was disconnected from reality. The Commission acknowledges in black and white that the transition to 100% reusable films and straps would require investment in automated solutions that "are not yet sufficiently developed." Worse still, it admits that this forced transition could simply have "disrupted supply chains." According to the Commission, "Such a change could therefore disrupt supply chains and entail costs for economic operators, mainly those using transport packaging."

The European Commission is not only the guardian of the Treaties. It has shown that it can also be the guardian of competitiveness and our European industrial sovereignty when the driving forces of the economy are listened to.

Seeking to impose a technological solution that does not exist on an industrial scale, at the risk of crippling the European economy: this perfectly sums up the institutional plastic bashing that we fight against every day at Plastalliance.

Plastic remains indispensable

The protection and stabilization of products on pallets does not tolerate amateurism. Stretch film and plastic straps fulfill a safety and efficiency mission that no alternative can currently match on a large scale without skyrocketing costs.

This decision, which will come into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, sends a strong signal. It proves that when industry stands together and demonstrates the economic absurdity of certain measures, the technocratic machine can reverse course.

Let us rejoice in this victory, but remain vigilant. The fight to rehabilitate plastic and industrial logic continues!

On April 8, 2026, the Council of State issued a landmark ruling in favor of Plastalliance: the highest administrative court overturned the government decree that sought to ban plastic containers from our school cafeterias by simply striking down its legal definition.

Behind the legal jargon (the annulment of Article D. 541-338 of the Environmental Code), the message sent by the judges is clear and scathing. The government erred through overzealousness and dogmatism. The State has, moreover, been ordered to pay 3,000 euros to our union.

Here's why this decision is so important.

Breaking news for the French government: reusable isn’t the same as single-use!

To justify this witch hunt against plastic containers, the government has long used the European Union as a shield. The argument? “It’s Brussels’ fault.” The Council of State has just shattered that excuse.

The courts have reaffirmed a point that Plastalliance has been emphasizing for years: the 2019 European directive explicitly targets only the reduction of single-use plastics (and even then, only certain items such as straws, stirrers, etc.). By attempting to indirectly ban reusable and durable plastic containers, France has engaged in excessive and illegal transposition of the directive. Reusable plastic is a pillar of the circular economy; it has every right to be in our cafeterias.

By attempting to enforce this ban by force, the government created a “technical regulation” that affects economic trade and the internal market, without even bothering to notify the European Commission in advance. Was it afraid of the Commission’s reaction and chose to ignore it? This major procedural error is now the reason for the regulation’s annulment.

The Ruin of Mayors and the Broken Backs of Cafeteria Workers

Beyond the law, it is the reality on the ground that prevails. Set to take effect in 2028 in municipalities with fewer than 2,000 residents, this ban was a financial and social time bomb.

Replace plastic? Fine, but with what—and at what cost? Glass, steel, aluminum, and ceramics are produced by highly energy-intensive industries that rely heavily on fossil fuels. Their costs are skyrocketing. Imposing these materials on small communities would condemn them to astronomical expenses they can no longer bear. Not to mention the transportation and fuel costs for washing operations when these aren’t handled in-house—costs that rise as the weight being transported increases. This isn’t theory; it’s physics.

And what about the people involved? Just ask the school staff! Replacing plastic food trays with stainless steel or glass ones means carrying much heavier loads at arm’s length every day. It turns mealtime into an unbearable cacophony for both the staff and our children.

Proof from the hospital: plastic is safe

Clear proof of the absurdity of this anti-plastic campaign: the Council of State left untouched the exemptions that the decree provided for pediatric, obstetric, and neonatal services.

Here is a list of the plastic products covered by this list:

“1. Containers that constitute a medical device as defined in Article L. 5211-1 of the Public Health Code;

“2. Containers used to ensure an adequate level of safety and hygiene for individuals requiring sterile food;

“3. Containers for prepackaged processed products, as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004, on the hygiene of foodstuffs, and in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 25, 2011, on the provision of food information to consumers, provided they are not intended to be reheated;

“4. Food containers and substitutes as defined by Regulation (EU) No. 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 12, 2013, on food intended for infants and young children, foods intended for special medical purposes, and total daily ration substitutes for weight control, provided they are not intended to be reheated;

“5. Teats and bottle rings;

“6. Films used as lids, covers, and other closure devices, as well as seals, provided they are not intended to be heated;

“7. Cutlery, provided that the plastic component has been designed to eliminate any risk of injury to young children;

“8. Containers in which the plastic component designed for ergonomic purposes or to provide a thermal or sound barrier does not come into contact with food.”

Why? Because plastic remains the safest, most hygienic, and most suitable material for critical environments. If it is essential and safe for our infants in the hospital, by what miracle would it suddenly become toxic for 6-year-olds at school? Let’s remember that plastic containers have always been permitted in prisons, healthcare facilities, festivals, and fast-food restaurants. Science and logic have ultimately prevailed over ideology.

The only ones who didn't look away

In this fight, it is worth highlighting an uncomfortable truth: Plastalliance was the only industry organization to step up and defend this sector. Where others chose to give up, bow down, or simply look the other way—believing the battle was lost before it began in the face of the media and political steamroller—we refused to abandon our manufacturers and local communities. We chose to fight back, relying on legal rigor and scientific truth. This outcome proves that we must never give in to fatalism.

What now? We're keeping a close eye on things

With the repeal of the container regulations, the entire ban has collapsed. Local governments, both large and small, now have complete freedom to choose the material they deem most appropriate, most ergonomic, and most cost-effective for their cafeterias.

If the government insists on pushing ahead and drafting a new decree, it has been warned: this time, it will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by the European Commission. And Plastalliance will be there.

The Council of State didn’t even need to consider our other arguments (including the violation of the new European PPWR regulation on packaging) to overturn the ruling. We therefore still have all our options open.

Plastalliance will continue to tirelessly defend the industrial sector, jobs in France and Europe, and the autonomy of our regions in the face of the excesses of punitive environmentalism.