Private Label in the Food Sector: Who Is Responsible for What?

The pack carries a retailer’s or manufacturer’s brand, production takes place with a specialist partner, ingredients come from further supply chains, and product data are held in several systems. In this situation, a contractual list of responsibilities is not enough. What matters is whether the statutory role, actual control, access to information and documented approval align for every relevant product characteristic.

There is no single private-label rule assigning all responsibility to one contracting party. The brand owner is generally responsible for food information where the product is marketed under its name. The manufacturer remains responsible for requirements relating to its manufacturing activities and the processes it controls. Other businesses in the chain have their own duties to check, maintain traceability and take action. A robust model therefore combines assessment of statutory roles with contractual allocation of tasks, clearly defined data and evidence, established approval points and a crisis process that is ready to operate in advance.

The Packaging Shows Only Part of the Responsibility

Private label brings several functions together in one product: a retailer or brand business defines the positioning, role in the range and often parts of the formulation. A manufacturer translates the brief into ingredient procurement, processing and routine production. Laboratories, packaging suppliers, logistics partners and agencies provide further input relevant to decisions. Yet usually only one business features prominently on the label. This can easily create the impression that the name shown also determines every responsibility under food law.

EU law takes a more differentiated approach. The General Food Law Regulation requires food business operators at every stage of production, processing and distribution to ensure and verify compliance with the requirements relevant to their activities within the businesses under their control. Traceability must be established at every stage. If a business identifies a safety problem in food it has imported, produced, processed or distributed, it has its own obligations to withdraw the product, inform the authorities and, where necessary, initiate a recall. [1]

The Food Information to Consumers Regulation makes a specific allocation for food information. Responsibility for its presence and accuracy generally lies with the food business operator under whose name or business name the food is marketed; if that operator is not established in the Union, the importer assumes this role. Other participants remain involved: they must not supply food where they know, or should presume from the professional information available to them, that the food information is non-compliant. Changes to information and the provision of sufficient data between businesses give rise to further obligations. [2]

For a private-label product, there are therefore strong grounds for the retailer or brand business named on the packaging to bear responsibility under Article 8(1) of the Food Information to Consumers Regulation. This concerns food information. It does not make the brand owner the operator of the manufacturing process. The production site must control hygiene requirements and its HACCP-based system for the activities under its control. [3] Product-specific duties may be tied even more closely to manufacturing. For example, the Regulation on microbiological criteria requires food business operators to meet the criteria at their respective stages; it expressly assigns necessary shelf-life studies to the business responsible for manufacturing. [4]

The central distinction is therefore this: who is addressed by law in relation to a particular item of information or activity, and who actually holds the data and controls the processes needed to fulfil that duty? Private-label projects rarely fail because nobody has accepted a task in a spreadsheet. Problems arise when the responsible party grants approval without the necessary factual basis, or when the party holding the knowledge can make changes without involving the approval authority in time.

Contracts Organise Cooperation, Not Statutory Responsibility

Manufacturing and quality assurance agreements can precisely define control over formulations, ingredient approval, testing scope, artwork processes, liability and allocation of costs. They operate between the parties. In dealings with authorities, responsibility continues to be assessed against the applicable rules, the specific activity and the part of the business under the operator’s control. A retailer does not escape responsibility simply because the manufacturer has contractually guaranteed conformity. In Lidl Italia, the Court of Justice had already established that EU law does not impose general, exclusive responsibility on manufacturers, and that national law may also hold a distributor accountable for incorrect labelling information. [5]

This establishes a different priority for drafting contracts than a general liability clause. The first question is which specific outputs must be delivered and approved: a version-controlled formulation, complete ingredient and allergen information, finished-product specification, nutrition data, shelf-life justification, microbiological testing plan, packaging compliance evidence, artwork, product master data and country-specific market clearance. Each requires an owner, reviewer, authorised approver, validity date and change trigger. Only on this basis can warranties, indemnities, insurance and rights of recourse be formulated meaningfully.

An audit or certification can provide technical support for this structure. It is an assessment of a system or site at a particular time and within a defined scope. The Official Controls Regulation makes the limits clear: authorities may take the results of internal or privately commissioned controls into account in their risk assessment, but they continue to examine processes, raw materials, labelling, traceability records and other evidence. Businesses must provide access and cooperate. [6] For approval of a specific product, it is therefore necessary to establish whether the available evidence covers the scope, site, product category and actual process. Certification status replaces neither the product specification nor assessment of a deviation.

Approvals Must Be Tied to Defined Product Versions

The preceding article on labelling review showed that artwork is merely the visible expression of the formulation, specifications, process and communication. Private label adds an organisational difficulty: this information originates in different companies. A PDF marked ‘approved’ is therefore reliable only if it is clear which formulation, site, packaging, target market and sales channel the approval covers.

The starting point is a shared, defined product version. It connects the brand owner’s commercial requirements with a technically manufacturable formulation and the product’s legal identity. The manufacturer must disclose which ingredients, sub-ingredients, processing aids and technical parameters are material to the result. In turn, the brand owner must fully provide the intended claims, imagery, target markets, retailer requirements and context of use. Where components remain confidential, there must nevertheless be an assessment route that gives the responsible party sufficient information or a reliable independent evaluation. Confidentiality must not reduce conformity assessment to an unsupported assurance.

Approval should then follow the actual dependencies. Final labelling requires a stable formulation and ingredient specification. The commercially desired shelf life needs data on the product, process, packaging and intended supply chain. Claims depend on formulation values and levels maintained throughout shelf life. Artwork should not be finalised for printing until these preceding decisions are documented. If parallel work is accepted to save time, its provisional status must remain clear; outstanding conditions need owners and deadlines. Otherwise, a scheduling decision can inadvertently become product approval.

Transfer to routine production deserves particular attention. A pilot batch made with manually selected ingredients and close process supervision may have different properties from subsequent production. The approved product version must therefore reflect the actual manufacturing site, approved suppliers, real tolerances and routine production process. The decisive question is not whether a sample is sensorially convincing, but whether the documented product can be manufactured reproducibly and lawfully within the specified limits.

Change Control Determines How Long Approval Remains Valid

In many private-label relationships, initial approval is detailed while later changes are handled informally. This is precisely where the dossier loses its evidential value. Replacing a seasoning blend may change sub-ingredients, allergens, additive functions, origin and nutritional values. A new film may affect barrier properties, shelf life and migration assessment. A different site may change process control, certification scope, approval markings and traceability. A change in recipe quantities may alter claims or the order of the ingredients list.

An effective change procedure therefore defines notifiable events by their impact, rather than only by the manufacturer’s internal terminology. It specifies which documents must be submitted, who assesses the consequences and whether new samples, analyses, shelf-life testing, labelling review or market clearance are required. Urgent substitute ingredients require an accelerated but documented exception process. A simple reference to an ‘equivalent specification’ is sufficient only if the characteristics relevant to the product and its communication have actually been compared.

This does not mean that the brand owner must take operational control of every production decision. It needs a reliable information and consent process for changes affecting its responsibility for food information, product positioning or market clearance. Conversely, the manufacturer needs protection from late marketing changes that conflict with the formulation, process or evidence. The responsibility matrix thus becomes a controlled data flow: report the change, assess its effects, update affected documents, approve the decision and record the effective point by batch.

Practical Assessment: an Allergen Case Exposes the Weak Point

Suppose a contract manufacturer replaces a seasoning blend because of a supply shortage. The new specification lists mustard as a sub-ingredient. The change is approved in the manufacturer’s procurement system; the formulation code and finished-product item number remain unchanged. The brand owner receives no change notification and continues using the existing artwork.

The case cannot be resolved by saying that one party is ‘responsible for everything’. The manufacturer controls the ingredients and manufacturing process and must assess the changed allergen situation within its system. The brand owner, under whose name the product is marketed, needs the change information to ensure the accuracy of consumer information. A retailer that becomes aware of the defect must not continue distribution without assessment. If the product has reached the market and presents a safety risk, each affected food business operator must act without delay within the scope of its activities; contractual allocation of costs follows afterwards.

Food Essentials therefore assesses the issue strictly against the product version: the ingredient change should take effect only after its implications for the specification, allergen management, artwork, stocks and batch coding have been assessed and approved. The supplier’s statement is one item of input evidence. The established legal framework determines which operators must act according to their activities and control. The operational decision establishes how these two levels are brought together before the next production run.

In an Incident, the First Hour Matters

A recall procedure negotiated between manufacturer, brand owner and retailer only after a non-compliance finding is operationally too slow. Before market launch, at least the reporting routes, availability, deputies, decision-making authority, batch and recipient data, access to samples and analyses, and approval of consumer communication must be established. It is equally important to distinguish a quality deviation, a legal non-compliance without a safety risk and a possible health hazard. This affects the measures, urgency and communication.

Traceability must reflect the actual supply chain. A manufacturer may know its production and raw material batches, while the brand owner controls sales channels and promotional stocks and the retailer records distribution to stores or end customers. Only a binding process for combining these data enables targeted holds or withdrawals. An annual recall test is meaningful if it tests interfaces between businesses, rather than only one partner’s internal ERP system.

Germany, Austria and Switzerland: a Common EU Core and a Distinct Swiss Responsibility Framework

For Germany and Austria, directly applicable EU law forms the common core. German authorities emphasise each food business’s own responsibility for the food it manufactures, stores or distributes, including documented internal controls, traceability and market action. [7] Austria additionally establishes operator responsibility in Sections 21 and 22 of the Food Safety and Consumer Protection Act (LMSVG); Section 38 connects cooperation with official controls to the duties under Article 19 of the General Food Law Regulation. [8] National responsibilities, sanctions and enforcement procedures differ without displacing the EU’s underlying function-based approach.

Switzerland requires a separate assessment. Article 26 of the Foodstuffs Act (LMG) requires businesses to carry out self-monitoring. The Foodstuffs and Utility Articles Ordinance (LGV) requires a responsible person with a business address in Switzerland for each food establishment and assigns that person responsibility for ensuring and verifying compliance with the requirements relevant to its activities. Self-monitoring includes good procedural practice, HACCP, analyses, traceability, withdrawal, recall and documentation. [9] For products hazardous to health, the FSVO makes clear that businesses must immediately remove them from the market, inform the enforcement authority and initiate a recall where consumers have already received them. [10]

An EU contract can provide a starting point for arrangements across Germany, Austria and Switzerland. For Switzerland, the responsible person, import and distribution route, product information, self-monitoring dossier and incident process must be expressly added. Operationally, a shared core of product data with separate market clearances makes sense. This keeps formulations and specifications consistent while making decisions on the applicable responsibility and labelling requirements explicit.

Conclusion

Private label works from a regulatory perspective only as a coordinated system involving several businesses. The name on the packaging is central to responsibility for food information. Manufacturing, hygiene and certain evidence requirements remain tied to the controlled process. Traceability and crisis-related duties apply to the participating businesses within their respective activities. Contracts need to translate this structure into verifiable information, approval and change procedures.

In practice, a short, product-specific responsibility matrix is more valuable than an extensive collection of general statements about duties. It must show who prepares, reviews and approves each decision item, the data on which approval relies and what causes it to cease to be valid. This makes responsibility actionable: before the first production run, whenever a relevant change occurs and during the first hour of an incident.

Food Essentials helps brand owners, retailers and manufacturers structure private-label projects from clarification of roles and data through to documented product approval and market clearance. The focus is on reliable interfaces between formulation, specification, labelling, quality assurance, change control and crisis management.

Where existing agreements describe responsibilities only in abstract terms or fail to link product versions and change triggers clearly, Food Essentials can review the operational approval process and translate it into a practical matrix of tasks, evidence and decisions for the project.

Wishing you a pleasant Sunday, Andreas Gebhart

References

All sources checked on 28 August 2026.

1. VO (EG) 178/2002, Art. 3, 17–19.
2. VO (EU) 1169/2011, Art. 7–9.
3. VO (EG) 852/2004, Art. 1 und 5.
4. VO (EG) 2073/2005, Art. 3–5 und Anhang II.
5. EuGH, C-315/05 – Lidl Italia.
6. VO (EU) 2017/625, Art. 9 und 14–15.
7. BVL: Pflichten von Lebensmittelunternehmen und BMLEH: Lebensmittelkontrolle in Deutschland.
8. LMSVG, §§ 21–22 und 38.
9. LMG, Art. 26 und LGV, Art. 73–75 und 84.
10. BLV: Öffentliche Warnungen und Rückrufe von Lebensmitteln.

Note: This article provides technical information and does not constitute legal advice. The specific supply chain, actual activities and areas of control, contractual arrangements, target market and law applicable at the time of the decision are decisive. Image: AI-generated.