If your packaging, kitchenware, or food-processing equipment touches food, regulators in the EU, US, China, and beyond require proof that chemicals from the material aren’t migrating into the food above safe limits. Getting that proof means sending samples to an accredited lab, and the three names that come up most often are SGS, Eurofins, and Intertek.
All three are large, ISO/IEC 17025-accredited testing networks that run migration testing against the same underlying regulations, so the real decision usually comes down to regional footprint, turnaround, and how much regulatory hand-holding you need, not raw technical capability. This guide breaks down what each lab actually does and how to choose between them.
Quick Answer
SGS, Eurofins, and Intertek all offer specific migration testing (SML) for named substances, overall migration testing (OML) where the applicable market requires it (the EU, China, and Mercosur countries in South America, for example), and regulatory consulting for food contact materials. The US FDA doesn’t set a general overall migration limit, so US-focused testing through 21 CFR centers on specific substances and dietary-exposure thresholds instead. There’s no single “best” lab for every case — pick based on which one has strong local presence where you manufacture or sell, which substances you need tested (BPA, PAAs, phthalates, PFAS, heavy metals, NIAS), and which one gives you the fastest quote and turnaround for your specific material type.
What Each Lab Actually Offers
SGS runs packaging migration testing and regulatory consulting covering plastic and non-plastic food contact materials across markets including the EU, US, China, and Japan. It positions itself heavily around full-supply-chain auditing and certification, so it’s a natural fit if you already use SGS for other compliance or quality-assurance work and want one vendor managing multiple programs.
Eurofins offers migration testing, NIAS (non-intentionally added substances) screening, sensory evaluation, and total-content analysis across plastics, metals, glass, ceramics, paper and board, printing inks, silicones, coatings, and rubber. Its global legal-compliance services explicitly cover the EU, US (FDA), China, and Japan, and it has started advertising testing aligned with the EU’s newer Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which matters if you’re trying to get ahead of upcoming EU packaging rules rather than just today’s requirements.
Intertek’s migration testing follows standards such as DIN EN 1186 and DIN EN 13130 for plastics, plus FDA 21 CFR specification testing and overall/specific migration rules for China and Mercosur countries in South America. It calls out specific analytical expertise in BPA, primary aromatic amines, metals, phthalates, PFAS, other bisphenols, UV-ink photoinitiators, and microplastics, along with method development using GC, LC, and mass spectrometry — useful if your material has an unusual substance-of-concern profile that needs a custom method rather than a standard panel.
How to Choose Between Them
Start with geography. If most of your production or sales run through a particular region, check which lab has an accredited facility and in-market regulatory expertise there — testing can usually be done anywhere, but a lab with local staff will catch region-specific wording changes (like PPWR in the EU or evolving China GB standards) faster, and often means shorter shipping times for samples.
Match the test to the market, not just the substance. Overall migration testing checks the total amount of material that transfers into food or food simulants under conditions like heat, acidity, and contact time, and is required in the EU (under Regulation 10/2011), China, and Mercosur countries. The US FDA does not set a general overall migration limit — it regulates food contact substances individually under 21 CFR, mainly through specific migration and dietary-exposure thresholds (a narrow exception exists for certain polymeric coatings, which carry their own overall-extractives limit), so a report built for the EU won’t automatically satisfy an FDA review and vice versa. Specific migration testing targets individual substances — BPA, phthalates, heavy metals, formaldehyde, PFAS, and similar — and is where lab specialization matters most; if you already know which substance is the concern for your material (e.g., PFAS in grease-resistant paper), ask each lab directly about their detection limits and methods for that compound rather than assuming all three are equivalent.
Get quotes and turnaround estimates for your exact material and market combination before committing. Migration testing pricing and lead time vary by material type, number of food simulants required, and how many substances are in scope, so a generic price list won’t tell you much — request a quote against your actual product spec from at least two of the three labs.
Ask about consulting depth, not just testing. All three labs sell regulatory interpretation and worst-case migration calculations alongside lab work. If you’re a smaller brand without in-house regulatory staff, the quality of that advisory layer — not the chemistry — is often what actually prevents a rejected shipment or recall.
Tips / Common Mistakes
Don’t test for the wrong market’s rules. EU, FDA, and Chinese food contact regulations use different simulants, time/temperature conditions, substance lists, and even different testing frameworks (the EU requires overall migration testing; the FDA generally does not) — a report that satisfies EU Regulation 10/2011 doesn’t automatically satisfy FDA 21 CFR or vice versa. Tell the lab every market you plan to sell into before testing starts, not after.
Don’t assume one migration test covers your whole product. A multi-material item (like a coated metal can or a printed plastic pouch) may need separate migration testing for each layer or component that contacts food, including inks and adhesives, not just the primary substrate.
Don’t skip NIAS. Non-intentionally added substances — breakdown products, contaminants, or recycling residues not deliberately added to the material — are an increasing focus for regulators, especially with recycled content. Ask upfront whether your quote includes NIAS screening or only targeted substance testing.
Don’t wait until a buyer or customs authority asks for a report. Lead times for full migration testing panels can run several weeks once simulant soak periods and lab queues are factored in, so build testing into your product development timeline rather than treating it as a last step before shipping.
Explore more: More food packaging compliance guides.
Food contact migration testing lab comparison FAQs
What’s the difference between overall migration and specific migration testing?
Overall migration testing (OML) measures the total mass of non-volatile substances that transfer from a food contact material into food or a food simulant, regardless of what those substances are; it’s required in the EU, China, and Mercosur countries. Specific migration testing (SML) targets individual named substances, like BPA or a particular phthalate, against a limit set for that substance specifically. The US FDA relies mainly on specific-substance testing and dietary-exposure thresholds rather than a general overall migration limit.
Do SGS, Eurofins, and Intertek all test to the same standards?
They test against the same underlying regulations — EU Regulation 10/2011, FDA 21 CFR, and country-specific rules in markets like China — but their specific accreditations, in-house methods, and regional lab footprints differ. Confirm with each lab that they’re accredited for the exact standard and market you need before submitting samples.
How long does food contact migration testing take?
Turnaround depends on the material, the number of simulants and substances tested, and the lab’s queue, and it can range from about one to several weeks. Get a specific estimate for your product before planning a launch or shipment date around it.
Can I use results from one lab to satisfy a different market’s regulator?
Not automatically. A test report built for EU Regulation 10/2011 uses different simulants, conditions, and an overall migration framework that FDA 21 CFR generally doesn’t have, or China’s standards use. If you sell into multiple markets, tell the lab upfront so they can either run multi-market protocols or issue separate reports.
Find the Right Packaging Supplier
Search the free Packaura supplier directory — filter by material, certification, and location to find vetted suppliers. Search the Supplier Directory.
Want packaging news in your inbox? Subscribe to the free newsletter.
Images: SGSCorp.