What the law regulates
The article as used, never the pellet.
In both the United States and the European Union, food contact law regulates the finished article under the conditions it is actually used in. Everything else on this page follows from that one sentence.
| The instrument | What it actually says | Why it matters to a printed part |
|---|---|---|
| US law 21 CFR 174.5 | Any substance used as a component of articles that contact food shall be of a purity suitable for its intended use, under conditions of good manufacturing practice1. | No printed part fails that section outright. Nor does a desktop machine with a shared hot end and ambient dust settling on the filament have any plausible route to satisfying it. |
| US law 21 CFR 177.1315 | The copolyester family PETG belongs to may be safely used in contact with food, subject to the provisions of this section and of part 174, with extractables limits and tabulated conditions of use2. | A cleared polymer class is necessary and nowhere near sufficient. PLA has no equivalent section at all: its US route is a notification held by a named resin maker for named conditions of use, and it does not travel with the filament3. |
| EU law Regulation (EC) 1935/2004, Article 3 | Articles must not transfer constituents to food in quantities that could endanger health or change the food, under normal or foreseeable conditions of use. And: the labelling, advertising and presentation of a material or article shall not mislead the consumers4. | A marketing page can breach Article 3(2) all by itself. Calling a printed object food safe without the evidence is a labelling offence as well as a product problem. |
| EU law Regulation (EU) 10/2011 | A generic specific migration limit of 60 mg/kg where none is set, an overall migration limit of 10 mg per dm2 of food contact surface, and 60 mg/kg instead for food intended for infants and young children5. Compliance is demonstrated with a written declaration by the person placing the article on the market. | That person is us, not the filament maker, and the demonstration takes test data on the finished article. We do not run migration tests on your piece, so we do not make it. |
| EU law 10/2011, Article 6(2) and 6(4) | Colorants are not on the Union list at all. They are left to national law. And non-intentionally added substances are explicitly acknowledged to be present. | This is the most under-reported fact in filament marketing. Pointing at 10/2011 clears no filament colour, and pigment recipes are trade secrets. Extrusion adds thermal degradation products the pellet never had, on top of that. |
| EU law Regulation (EC) 2023/2006 | Good manufacturing practice for food contact materials requires a documented quality assurance and quality control system6. | No print shop has any of that unless somebody builds it on purpose. Ours is built, for one named job and nothing else. |
In one sentence: food contact compliance belongs to a finished article, under stated conditions of use, demonstrated with test data by the person selling it. It never belongs to a spool.
No regulator anywhere has yet ruled on whether a printed object may be used with food. The EFSA Journal carries 388 papers on food contact and plastic and none of them on 3D printing or additive manufacturing30. An absence of guidance is neither permission nor prohibition, so the sentences above are the whole of the law that reaches a printed part, and the protocol at the foot of this page is how we work inside it.
What the manufacturers say
Three brands, three genuinely different answers.
The three largest consumer filament brands stand in three different places on this question. Flattening them into one column would throw away the most useful thing on this page.
| Brand | Posture | In their own words |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Creality | Disclaims it. No food, food grade, FDA or EU reference is attached to any Creality PLA or PETG product. The only compliance marks on the spool are RoHS and REACH, neither of which is a food contact approval7. | Browse Creality's PETG collection or Hyper PETG, but do not interpret those links as food-contact certification. And: a broad claim such as PETG is FDA approved is therefore insufficient. One older article still shows a table row reading PLA, FDA Approval, Approved. That row describes a polymer family sitting among other companies' products, and it says No to dishwashers and No to hot liquids two columns later8. |
| Manufacturer Anycubic | Silent. Not claimed, not denied, never raised. The word food does not appear once across 19 product pages and 12 technical data sheets9. | Its only food sentence is in the PLA safety data sheet and points the other way: keep away from food, drink and animal feedingstuffs10. Its own certifier's cover letter adds that a safety data sheet is not a test report or a certificate ensuring the safety of a product. |
| Manufacturer Bambu Lab | One product, properly documented. PLA Pure, and only PLA Pure. None of its other nineteen PLA and PETG products carries anything comparable, and none of its four PETG products does11. | Backed by twelve SGS test reports dated 13 March 2026, tested against Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 and (EU) 10/2011, on printed parts including a printed spoon12. Bambu Lab's own wiki: migration tests are performed on actual 3D printed parts, and the printed part meets EU food contact safety requirements under the corresponding test conditions and food contact scenarios13. |
Read the last line of the Bambu row again. PETG is the plastic this market usually markets as the safe one. The brand that has done more food contact testing than anyone else has four PETG products and makes the claim on none of them. That silence tells you something.
What the twelve reports actually tested
A certificate is only as good as its scope, so here is the scope. Overall migration in four simulants: 10 percent ethanol at 70 C for two hours, 3 percent acetic acid at 70 C for two hours, 95 percent ethanol at 60 C for two hours, and isooctane at 40 C for half an hour. Limit 10 mg per dm2, reporting limit 3.0 mg per dm2, result not detected in all four across three migrations. Specific migration of nineteen metals by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry, primary aromatic amines, bisphenols, and an odour and taste examination, all recorded as a pass.
Two limits sit inside that, and neither is buried. Every migration table states that the test condition and simulant were specified by the client, so it is a pass for the scenario the manufacturer nominated rather than one derived independently from an intended use. And the separate toy safety report has a different test article again: EN 71-3 was run on filament ground into the form the standard requires, in 0.07 mol/L hydrochloric acid, shaken at 37 C for one hour, while the migration work was run on printed parts. Two certifications on one product, on two different things. They should not be merged. The vendor's own reports are so far the only ones on the record: an independent replication of a food contact pass on a printed consumer part is still to come.
The printer becomes part of the object
The nozzle metal question.
Some of what ends up in a printed part was never in the plastic. It came off the machine. That is the strongest independent evidence on this page, and it cuts straight across the way filament is sold.
A contract analytical laboratory printed the same devices on hardened steel, stainless steel and brass nozzles, extracted them chemically, and ran the extracts against matched filament controls. Of fifteen elements targeted, only lead showed up in the printed devices, and lead was absent from the filament extracts entirely14.
| Material | Nozzle | Lead, ng per g | Lead, ng per device |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLA | Steel | 0.13 | 0.69 |
| PLA sold as FDA approved | Brass | 1.46 | 7.37 |
| The same, after annealing | Brass | 0.98 | 4.95 |
| PETG | Steel | 0.11 | 0.60 |
| Polycarbonate | Brass | 1.08 | 4.95 |
The paper's conclusion, verbatim: the devices printed using the brass nozzle had 7 to 12 times greater concentrations of lead compared to those printed using a steel nozzle, and the absence of lead in filament extracts provides evidence that lead from a printing nozzle can contribute to the extractable profile of 3D printed materials. Free machining brass alloys of the kind ordinary nozzles are turned from carry lead deliberately, as a machining aid.
How big is it, honestly, because overstating this would be the same mistake in reverse
These are very small absolute quantities. 1.46 ng/g is 0.00146 mg/kg. The EU migration limit for lead in scraped off toy material is 23 mg/kg and the limits for dry and for liquid toy material are 2.0 and 0.5 mg/kg15. The US total lead content limit for children's products is 100 ppm16. The measured figure is four to five orders of magnitude below every one of them. Anyone telling you printer nozzles push a child over a lead limit is wrong, and we will not say it.
What is true is narrower and far more interesting. The lead arrives with the machine rather than with the material, so no filament certificate can evidence its absence. Only the finished part could be tested. And the regulator's own standard for lead in children's products is not a threshold, it is a direction of travel: since no threshold for the neurodevelopmental effects can be established, any additional exposure must be avoided as far as possible. A brass nozzle is an avoidable additional exposure. We print on hardened steel.
The same study turned up three more things worth your attention
An undeclared restricted phthalate. DEHP was detected at 6 ug per g in the printed device made from the filament sold as FDA approved, and at 4 ug per g in that filament. DEHP is on the REACH authorisation list and the ECHA candidate list, classified toxic for reproduction17. The quantity is far below the 0.1 percent toy limit18. That is not the point. The point is that it was there at all, in a product sold for food, and nobody had mentioned it.
An undeclared co-polymer. Polypropylene glycol oligomers made up 72 percent of the total oligomers detected from that same filament, and the paper notes it was not listed as a material component by the manufacturer.
Printing generates particulate the filament did not have. Total particle counts in printed device extracts were ten times greater than in the corresponding filament extracts, and about 2 percent of particles carried copper, zinc or iron signatures from the nozzle. Annealing helped: total analyte mass fell 43 percent, lead per device fell from 7.37 to 4.95 ng and DEHP dropped below the detection limit entirely. That is real process diligence and it is not a route to compliance, so we treat it as the former and never quote it as the latter.
Know the shape of this evidence before you lean on it. It is one 2019 study, a small number of specimens, well executed, with an obvious mechanism, and never repeated in a food simulant migration test. The extraction used isopropanol and hexane as well as water, so what it gives is a worst case extractable profile rather than a migration result. Strong and unconfirmed at the same time, which is exactly why the answer to it is a steel nozzle rather than a claim.
The surface
Layer lines and bacteria: what is known, and what is not.
This is the question people overstate in both directions, so here is the honest version first.
The hygienic design argument, which is the strong one
The criterion
Food contact surfaces are supposed to be smooth, continuous and free of crevices. The conventional quantitative expression of that is a roughness of 0.8 micrometres or better, used across EN 1672-2, ISO 14159 and the EHEDG hygienic design guidance19.
The measurement
Focus variation microscopy on replicas of printed surfaces found an areal roughness parameter of 12.44 micrometres, the same figure for both PETG and PLA20, with directional, layer dependent patterning.
Roughly fifteen times coarser than the criterion, and the sidewall is a stack of parallel grooves at the layer pitch by construction. Handle the ratio with care: the measured figure is an areal parameter and the criterion is a profile parameter, so they sit in the same order of magnitude rather than being the same quantity, and we never quote it as a precise multiple. The second mechanism needs no research at all. A printed part is not solid, and any crack or unfused boundary reaching the internal voids lets liquid into a space nobody can drain, dry, inspect or clean.
The direct evidence, which is thinner
What has been shown
Printed PLA disks tested against hospital bacteria were readily contaminated and sustained that contamination; contamination level varied with layer height; and disinfected disks had lower counts but the level of disinfection was variable and bacterial populations recovered hours after disinfection was applied21. Two commercially antimicrobial filaments sometimes performed worse than plain PLA. Separately, across eleven thermoplastics and four stainless steels, thermoplastic surfaces showed overall low cleanability rates, and cleanability was driven not only by roughness but by scratches and defects22. Layer lines are, in that framing, manufactured in defects.
Where the evidence stops
Nobody has published a dedicated peer reviewed study of pathogen survival on consumer printed kitchen items across realistic use and washing23. So anyone telling you the studies prove printed cups cause food poisoning is overstating it. And anyone telling you there is no evidence of a problem is leaning on a gap in the literature rather than on a clean bill of health.
So the protocol at the foot of this page is built around geometry, cleaning and replacement, which are the things a workshop can actually control.
Does sealing or coating fix it
In a laboratory, yes
A plasma deposited amorphous thin film approved for food contact, applied to printed polyamide, gave a contact angle of 112.9 degrees and a bactericidal effect of up to four logarithms after four hours, at or above 99.99 percent, against four organisms24.
On a workbench, unproven
That result took a plasma reactor, a coating carrying its own food contact approval, and four separate analytical methods to characterise it. Nobody has shown that consumer grade epoxy, polyurethane, shellac or spray lacquer gives a durable, pinhole free, compliant barrier on a printed part in a kitchen. The coating becomes a new food contact material with its own compliance to demonstrate, and a chipped coating is worse than no coating, because it shelters a crevice.
Bambu Lab recommends a food grade sealant where requirements are strict, and names the standard the resin should carry. That is a reasonable thing for a filament maker to say. Our protocol gets there with geometry and cleaning instead, because that is what we can validate on your piece.
Heat, and the wash
The dishwasher, and why a hand wash wins.
Long before any chemical question comes up, PLA has a temperature problem that settles most kitchen uses on its own. Creality says it plainly about its own product: PLA is less suitable for engine bay parts, hot car fixtures, dishwasher items, high impact mechanisms or long term outdoor hardware25, and hot liquids, dishwashers or prolonged heat can deform ordinary PLA before chemical food contact questions are even considered. Bambu Lab caps its own certified material at 60 C, and says printed parts are not suitable for holding liquid foods because of layer lines.
One study has asked the actual question. It tested printed PETG and a compostable PLA blend, hand washing against a dishwasher, and it found two things. Dishwashing reduced bacterial load significantly better than hand washing. The same dishwasher cycles caused a significant impact on the mechanical properties and the heat deflection temperature of both materials26. The wash that cleans the part is the wash that damages it, and the second half of that sentence is the half nobody quotes.
So: hand wash in cool water with mild detergent, rinse thoroughly, do not soak, do not use acetone. Not because a dishwasher fails to clean, but because it costs the part more than it buys you.
The passage that decided our position
When the vendor with the most to gain publishes the complicated answer.
Bambu Lab has every commercial reason to sell PLA Pure as the end of this conversation. Instead, about its own certified product, it published this.
Bambu Lab, PLA Pure wiki
Even when both the filament and the printing process meet food contact standards, FDM printing's layer-by-layer extrusion process can still leave tiny pores on the surface and between layers of the printed part, pores often too small to see with the naked eye. Over time, especially in scenarios involving contact with liquids, these pores may trap stains and harbor microorganisms.
And where its responsibility ends
Our company's responsibility is limited to the compliance and quality of the filament material as supplied. No express or implied warranty is made regarding the safety, suitability, or regulatory compliance of any parts printed by the user for food contact applications.
The first passage is the same conclusion the academic literature reached, arrived at separately by the manufacturer, and it is the one place on this page where a filament maker and the peer reviewed evidence agree without anyone pushing. The second is where every certificate stops, and the protocol below is what we put in its place.
The one exception
A documented food contact print, and its limits.
If a piece has to touch food, we will make it properly and write down exactly how. One filament, Bambu Lab PLA Pure, because it is the only consumer filament carrying migration testing on printed parts against the European regulation, backed by named reports that come to you with the part. Whether any filament outside the three brands we read carries comparable documentation, we do not know. PLA Pure rather than PETG, because PLA Pure is where the migration testing exists.
The process controls come from two directions, the manufacturer's own instructions and the independent evidence, and for once the two agree: a brand new nozzle in a non brass material, kept afterwards as the dedicated one; a dedicated print path including feeder, tube, nozzle and plate that never runs carbon filled, glass filled or high temperature materials; no glue on the plate, with bed temperature raised instead; rounded inside corners, no blind pockets a brush cannot reach, and contact faces printed as sides or tops; three to four wall loops, 20 to 40 percent infill and 6 mm3/s maximum volumetric speed; then strings removed with clean tools and never burned off, rinsed under running water, wiped with ethanol and rinsed again. The dedicated nozzle and the dedicated path are also the lead control available to a small workshop.
The conditions of use travel with the piece in writing, and they are the manufacturer's own rather than ours: nothing above 60 C and nothing below 0 C; no acidic, alkaline, solvent or corrosive liquids; no long term immersion and no prolonged exposure to a humid food environment; no long term contact with high liquid, high oil or hard to clean foods. To which we add: hand wash only, for over-threes, and replace rather than repair, because a scratch opens the crevice the whole protocol exists to avoid.
Children, kept separate on purpose
This is equipment, and a toy is a regulated product.
A printed object handed to a child is a regulated product in both the EU and the US, and neither regime cares that it was made one at a time. The EU Toy Safety Directive applies to anything designed or intended, whether or not exclusively, for use in play by children under 14, and requires CE marking, a declaration of conformity and technical documentation27. In the US, children's products need a certificate based on third party testing by an accepted laboratory, with no small batch exemption from the substantive requirements.
The real risk with a child is mechanical rather than chemical. A part that fits entirely within the small parts cylinder in any orientation fails, and the test is applied to components detached after use and abuse testing28. Printed parts break along their layers into hard fragments with sharp edges, which is exactly that clause. Everything we make is equipment for adults, carries no EN 71 or ASTM F963 testing, and we print for over-threes only.
Children are also the sensitive group for the workshop hazard, which is one more reason a printer does not belong in a bedroom. EPA dosimetry modelling across ages found total mass deposition highest in the 9 to 18 year band and deposition per unit pulmonary surface area highest from three months to nine years29.
The language on the spool
Some of these words stop being legal next year.
Generic environmental claims are on their way out of this market. The European Commission has said that generic claims such as bioplastics and biobased should not be made, and Directive (EU) 2024/825 bans generic environmental claims without demonstrated excellent performance from 27 September 202631. The food, hygiene, antimicrobial and toy claims that get attached to printed objects are in a similar position already: the evidence set out above would have to carry them, and the test data that could is still to be gathered by anyone in this trade.
So when you see one of those words on a spool or a listing, the useful question is the same every time. On what article was it demonstrated, and under what conditions of use? A claim with an answer to that is worth something. A claim without one is a word.
- 21 CFR 174.5, general provisions applicable to indirect food additives. US Code of Federal Regulations, retrieved from the electronic CFR. ecfr.gov
- 21 CFR 177.1315, ethylene-1,4-cyclohexylene dimethylene terephthalate copolymers. The section covering the copolyester family PETG belongs to, with its inherent viscosity specifications, extractables limits and conditions of use. ecfr.gov
- US Food and Drug Administration, Food Contact Substance Notification programme. The route by which PLA has US food contact status: notifier specific and use specific, effective for the notifying manufacturer and the conditions in the notification. fda.gov, inventory at cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov
- Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, Article 3. Retrieved from the EU Publications Office. eur-lex.europa.eu
- Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Articles 5(1), 6(2) on colorants, 6(4) on non intentionally added substances, 11(2), 12(1), 12(2) and 15(1). eur-lex.europa.eu
- Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 on good manufacturing practice for materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. eur-lex.europa.eu
- Creality, food safe 3D printer filament materials. Manufacturer document. Source for the explicit instruction not to interpret links to Creality PETG as food contact certification, for the statement that a broad claim such as PETG is FDA approved is insufficient, for the hot liquid and dishwasher answers, and for the layer line cleanability paragraph. store.creality.com
- Creality, is PLA food safe. Manufacturer document, the older article. Source for the PLA, FDA Approval, Approved table row, which is a polymer family row sitting among other companies' branded products and which reads No to dishwashers and No to hot liquids in the same row. store.creality.com
- Anycubic PLA and PETG product pages and technical data sheets. Manufacturer documents. Nineteen product pages fetched as raw HTML and twelve V3.0 data sheets text extracted on 8 September 2026, searched case insensitively for food, food grade, food safe, food contact, FDA, edible, tableware, cutlery and drink. Zero occurrences of food in any of them. store.anycubic.com
- Anycubic PLA and PETG safety data sheets, with the SGS service summary. Manufacturer documents. Source for keep away from food, drink and animal feedingstuffs, and for the certifier's own statement that a safety data sheet is not a test report or a certificate ensuring the safety of a product and was consolidated without independent verification. PETG safety data sheet
- Bambu Lab PLA Pure store page, and the recorded absence across the rest of the range. Manufacturer document. Source for the food contact wording, the 60 C and liquid food limits in the printing tips, the glue instruction, and for the finding that none of the other nineteen PLA and PETG products, including all four PETG products, carries any food contact claim. us.store.bambulab.com
- Bambu PLA Pure EU food contact report bundle. Manufacturer commissioned third party testing. SGS-CSTC Standards Technical Services, Guangzhou. Twelve reports, CANEC26004685501 to CANEC26004685523, dated 13 March 2026, testing period 5 to 13 March 2026, on twelve PLA Pure samples including a printed spoon. Tested against Regulation (EC) 1935/2004, (EU) 10/2011 as amended by (EU) 2025/351, and (EU) 2024/3190. Overall migration, heavy metals, primary aromatic amines, bisphenols and sensorial examination, all pass. Every migration table states that the test condition and simulant were specified by the client. Report bundle PDF
- Bambu Lab, PLA Pure wiki page. Manufacturer document. Source for the layer pore passage quoted on this page, the disclaimer quoted on this page, the end to end hardware control instructions, the design and slicing recommendations, the cleaning procedure, the excluded food contact scenarios, the sealant recommendation, and the EN 71-3 method run on ground filament. wiki.bambulab.com
- Rindelaub, J.D., Baird, Z., Lindner, B.A. and Strantz, A.A. (2019). Identifying extractable profiles from 3D printed medical devices. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0217137. Open access. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, gas and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry and scanning electron microscopy on solvent extracts of printed devices with matched filament controls, across hardened steel, stainless steel and brass nozzles. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0217137
- Council Directive (EU) 2017/738 of 27 March 2017 amending Annex II to Directive 2009/48/EC as regards lead. The 2.0, 0.5 and 23 mg/kg migration limits, and the recital that no threshold for the neurodevelopmental effects can be established so any additional exposure must be avoided as far as possible. eur-lex.europa.eu
- Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008, section 101, and CPSC guidance on total lead content. The 100 ppm limit in accessible substrate of children's products, and the third party testing and children's product certificate requirement. cpsc.gov
- European Chemicals Agency, substance information for DEHP. REACH Annex XIV authorisation list and candidate list substance of very high concern, classified toxic for reproduction. echa.europa.eu
- 16 CFR 1307.3. Prohibition on children's toys and child care articles containing more than 0.1 percent of DEHP and seven other phthalates, applying to any component part made of materials that may contain phthalates. ecfr.gov
- Hygienic design roughness criterion. EN 1672-2, hygiene requirements for food processing machinery; ISO 14159, hygiene requirements for the design of machinery; EHEDG Document 8; and the equivalent 32 microinch finish in the 3-A Sanitary Standards. The conventional expression of the criterion is a roughness of 0.8 micrometres or better on a food contact surface.
- Bazan, A., Turek, P., Budzik, G., Nieslony, P., Grygoruk, R. and Sieminski, P. (2025). The influence of model orientation on the surface roughness of polymeric models produced by FFF, mSLA, PJ and SLS methods. Materials 18(24): 5600. Focus variation microscopy on silicone replicas; the areal roughness parameter was the same, 12.44 micrometres, for both PETG and PLA. DOI 10.3390/ma18245600
- Jackson, K.C., Clancey, E., Call, D.R. and Lofgren, E. (2024). 3D printers in hospitals: bacterial contamination of common and antimicrobial 3D-printed material. Preprint at the time of writing; the companion conference abstract in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology 2023 is peer reviewed. The setting is hospital surfaces rather than food contact; the transferable result is layer height as a predictor of contamination. DOI 10.1101/2024.03.30.587440
- Waldhans, C., Hebel, M., Herbert, U., Spoelstra, P., Barbut, S. and Kreyenschmidt, J. (2023). Microbial investigation of cleanability of different plastic and metal surfaces used by the food industry. Journal of Food Science and Technology. Eleven thermoplastics, four stainless steels and five nanostructured aluminised surfaces. DOI 10.1007/s13197-023-05778-0
- Literature searches run on 8 September 2026, and what they returned empty. Europe PMC full index, OpenAlex, Crossref and Semantic Scholar were searched for a dedicated peer reviewed study of pathogen survival on consumer printed kitchen items across realistic use and wash cycles, and for peer reviewed evidence that a consumer grade sealant produces a compliant barrier on a printed part. Neither returned anything. An empty search is reported here as an empty search, not as a finding of safety. europepmc.org
- Nicotra, M. and others (2025). Investigation of surface properties and antibacterial activity of 3D-printed polyamide 12-based samples coated by a plasma SiOxCyHz amorphous thin film approved for food contact. Polymers 17(12): 1678. DOI 10.3390/polym17121678
- Creality, PLA filament guide: properties and settings. Manufacturer document. Source for the statement that PLA is less suitable for engine bay parts, hot car fixtures, dishwasher items, high impact mechanisms or long term outdoor hardware. store.creality.com
- Kailo, G., Gaspar, I., Krisztina, A., Kisko, G. and Koris, A. (2025). Investigating the effect of dishwasher on 3D printed food-contact material. Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences. The only study located of the actual consumer question. DOI 10.1556/446.2025.00174
- Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys. Scope, CE marking, EC declaration of conformity, technical documentation, and the essential safety requirements in Annex II, implemented in practice through the EN 71 harmonised standard series. eur-lex.europa.eu
- 16 CFR 1501, small parts. A part that fits entirely within the cylinder in any orientation fails, and the test applies to components detached after use and abuse testing. ecfr.gov
- Byrley, P., Boyes, W.K., Rogers, K. and Jarabek, A.M. (2021). US Environmental Protection Agency authors. 3D printer particle emissions: translation to internal dose in adults and children. Journal of Aerosol Science 154: 105765. Multiple path particle dosimetry modelling across ages three months to adult. DOI 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105765
- Institutional sweep, 8 September 2026, including the silences. WHO IRIS, the EFSA Journal via Europe PMC, ECHA, the FDA, OSHA, NIST and BfR were each searched for published guidance on printed food contact articles. None exists. The EFSA Journal returned zero results for 3D printing or additive manufacturing against 388 for food contact and plastic. ECHA's 3D printing page returned an HTTP 403 and could not be read, so no ECHA output found is a search result rather than a confirmed absence. NIOSH publication 2024-103 could not be retrieved in full and is therefore not quoted anywhere on this site. efsa.europa.eu, iris.who.int
- European Commission COM(2022) 682 final and Directive (EU) 2024/825. The policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics, which states that generic claims such as bioplastics and biobased should not be made, and the directive banning generic environmental claims without demonstrated excellent performance from 27 September 2026. COM(2022) 682, Directive (EU) 2024/825