How to Compare FDA, LFGB and EU Food-Contact Documents From Silicone Mold Suppliers

The fastest way to compare two silicone mold suppliers is not to count certificate logos.

Open the PDFs and verify:

1. what sample was tested;
2. which material/grade it represents;
3. which regulation/recommendation/test method is referenced;
4. which conditions were tested;
5. whether that scope matches your actual mold and market.

A genuine report for the wrong material is still the wrong evidence.

Step 1: identify the exact sample

Look for:

• silicone supplier;
• compound/grade;
• color;
• hardness if identified;
• sample description;
• article vs sheet/plaque;
• production/customer code.

Red flag:

quotation says one compound, report shows another.

Do not accept "same supplier family" without a technical basis.

Step 2: identify the laboratory and report

Verify:

• lab name;
• report number;
• issue date;
• page count;
• signature/authorization;
• accreditation where relevant;
• whether the report is complete.

Red flags:

• cropped screenshots;
• missing sample page;
• missing test conditions;
• edited product name;
• no report number.

Step 3: separate the U.S. regulatory reference from "FDA certification"

For U.S. repeated-use rubber articles, 21 CFR 177.2600 is a common regulatory reference.

Do not ask:

"Do you have an FDA certificate?"

Ask:

"What report/declaration supports the exact silicone grade/article for the intended repeated-food-contact use under the applicable U.S. requirements?"

FDA does not issue a generic supplier certificate that automatically approves all custom silicone molds.

Step 4: understand EU framework documents

For EU food-contact use, check how the supplier addresses:

• Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004;
• GMP under Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006;
• relevant material-specific/national guidance;
• customer/retailer requirements.

For silicone, do not assume Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 for plastics is itself the complete silicone regulatory route.

Ask the supplier/lab which rules and recommendations actually apply to the silicone article.

Step 5: understand "LFGB" requests accurately

Many German/EU buyers use "LFGB" as shorthand.

Review whether the report references:

• applicable German requirements;
• BfR Recommendation XV where relevant;
• migration/extractable/sensory test methods;
• food simulants;
• time/temperature.

Important: BfR states its food-contact recommendations are not binding legal standards; they represent technical/scientific recommendations used for assessment of materials such as silicones.

Do not market LFGB as an automatically superior version of FDA testing.

They are different frameworks/requirements.

Step 6: compare test conditions to the intended use

A report for short room-temperature contact may not answer:

• oven use;
• hot pectin depositing;
• fatty chocolate;
• acidic food;
• long-term beverage immersion.

Build a comparison table:

This table is more valuable than a "pass" stamp.

Step 7: check pigment coverage

If your production mold is colored:

• identify pigment;
• confirm whether report/declaration covers it;
• check whether finished-article testing is required.

A report on natural silicone should not automatically be presented as proof for every color.

Step 8: raw material vs finished article

A compound report can be useful.

A finished-article report can reduce some uncertainty.

The correct choice depends on:

• buyer requirement;
• market;
• process;
• color;
• risk.

Do not claim one is always required or always sufficient.

P73 content should be merged here as the detailed explanation.

Step 9: verify traceability before shipment

Ask for:

• PO/job;
• mold revision;
• silicone grade;
• lot;
• color/pigment;
• relevant cure/post-cure record;
• final QC/release.

The supplier should be able to explain how the shipped mold relates to the report.

Red flags that should stop PO approval

• "FDA-approved factory" with no exact standard/report;
• report grade does not match quote;
• only a TDS is provided;
• report sample identity is missing;
• one old report is claimed to cover every color;
• no traceability;
• supplier refuses to provide full report pages before final approval;
• test conditions obviously do not match the application.

Rewrite the existing RUUIPON verification page

RUUIPON already has:

/blog/verify-silicone-mold-fda-lfgb-test-report/

Keep it as the canonical comparison page.

Merge P73 into it.

Also update older FDA-vs-LFGB content that currently says "LFGB is stricter" as a broad slogan. A safer and more useful explanation is:

the regimes and test scopes differ; the buyer must match evidence to the destination market and use condition.

Regulatory references for editorial review

Verify the current versions of:

• 21 CFR 177.2600;
• Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004;
• Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006;
• BfR Recommendation XV;
• German LFGB requirements;
• customer/retailer specifications.