Public Procurement Act and food, the EU proposal

On 9 September 2026 the European Commission adopted the proposal for a regulation ‘on public contracts and concessions’, the Public Procurement Act (PPA). It would repeal directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU and replace them with a single, directly applicable regulation (European Commission, 2026a). According to the explanatory memorandum, public procurement accounts for ‘around 15% of the EU’s GDP’.

Food Times has covered two earlier steps. The first was the voluntary Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) criteria for food, food services and vending machines published by the Joint Research Centre (Dongo, 2025). The second was the inclusion of food waste prevention in SPP (Dongo, 2026a). Both analyses left one question open: would the revision of the 2014 directives turn voluntary criteria into binding rules? The proposal says no. Food does, however, get its own article for the first time.

The proposal in brief

The text contains 149 articles in seven Parts, plus Annexes I to VIII (European Commission, 2026b). Its application is deferred by two years after entry into force (PPA, Article 149). Recital 65 attributes the delay to ‘the scale and novelty of the reforms’.

The main elements relevant to agri-food operators are:

• thresholds of EUR 140 000 for supply and service contracts of central government authorities, EUR 216 000 for sub-central authorities, and EUR 750 000 for social, health and educational services (PPA, Article 2.1, letters ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘e’);
• the general principle that ‘Procurement shall be guided by the principle of best quality for public money’ (PPA, Article 4.1), and the Union’s policy objectives, including environmental and climate objectives and ‘fair working conditions’ (PPA, Article 5);
• three ordinary procedures, plus a special one: an open procedure, where any interested operator expresses interest and submits a first tender within at least 20 days, with selection criteria and negotiations left to the public buyer’s choice (PPA, Articles 34 and 35); a dynamic procedure, which keeps a supplier list open throughout its validity and awards individual contracts from it, with the first invitation no earlier than 25 days after publication (PPA, Articles 36 to 40); an innovation procedure for societal challenges without an existing solution, with market consultation, testing and validation, and a subsequent direct award (PPA, Articles 41 to 45); and a special procedure that requires only publication of a ‘public summary of result’ (PPA, Articles 46 to 48);
• a Title on ‘Strategic design and execution of public procurement’, with chapters on green, socially responsible and innovation procurement, security and resilience, and European preference (PPA, Part III, Title II).

Article 53, food procurement

The central provision is short: ‘For the purposes of pursuing objectives set in Articles 50(2) and Article 55(2), public buyers may also take considerations related to the quality and sustainability of food into account when procuring food, as appropriate, in specifications, award criteria or conditions for the performance of contracts, to the extent that they are related to the subject-matter of the contract’ (PPA, Article 53.1).

The considerations it lists ‘may relate, in particular’ to the following (PPA, Article 53.2):

• ‘fairness and transparency in food supply chains requirements and conditions, in particular a fair renumeration [sic] of the farmers involved in the production of procured food’ (letter ‘a’);
• ‘the organisation of the food supply chain’ (letter ‘b’);
• ‘requirements or conditions on organic production methods, quality schemes such as geographical indications, and other production methods’ (letter ‘c’);
• ‘nutritional value and health effects, freshness and seasonality of food criteria’ (letter ‘d’);
• ‘animal welfare requirements’ (letter ‘e’).

The correlation table shows no counterpart in the 2014 directives (PPA, Annex VIII, Part A). Article 53 is therefore a new legal basis. Its main effect is legal certainty: public buyers get an explicit basis for criteria that they previously had to justify case by case. The verb ‘may’, however, makes every item optional.

The link to the subject-matter of the contract remains the limit. The proposal widens it by saying that an indirect link covers ‘responsible sourcing and supply chain transparency for the product subject to the procurement in question’ (PPA, Article 90.3). Recital 40 gives the example of a product ‘of fair-trade origin, including the requirement to pay a minimum price and price premium to producers’. This supports the fair remuneration criterion under letter ‘a’. It can be read alongside regulation (EU) 2026/1739, which reserves claims such as ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’ and introduces the ‘short supply chain’ claim (Dongo, 2026c).

Letter ‘b’ deserves a closer look. The text refers to the ‘organisation’ of the supply chain and does not mention local sourcing. Specifications still may not refer to ‘a specific origin or production, having the effect of favouring or eliminating certain undertakings or products’ (PPA, Article 88.5). Geographical proximity as such therefore remains excluded. Structural features of the chain, such as the number of intermediaries, can instead become a criterion. The definitions in regulation (EU) 2026/1739 could offer an objective reference for this.

Letter ‘c’ covers organic production and geographical indications. Here the rules on labels apply: label requirements must be linked to the subject-matter, based on objectively verifiable criteria, and set by a third party (PPA, Article 91.1). Public buyers ‘shall accept all other equivalent labels’ (PPA, Article 91.2). Letter ‘e’ makes room for the species-specific animal welfare requirements already set out in the JRC criteria (Dongo, 2025).

Award criteria and minimum quality weighting

The most significant change for suppliers is in the award phase. ‘Public buyers shall award the contract to the economic operator that offers the best quality for money’ (PPA, Article 98.1), evaluating tenders on the best price-quality ratio (BPQR). This provision corresponds to Article 67 of directive 2014/24/EU (PPA, Annex VIII, Part A).

Quality may explicitly include ‘food-specific considerations referred to in Article 53 where relevant’ (PPA, Article 98.2, letter ‘b’). Minimum weights apply: ‘The weight of quality criteria shall represent at least 30 % of total points awarded’, and at least 50% ‘For contracts where the subject-matter is labour-intensive’ (PPA, Article 98.4). A labour-intensive contract is defined as one ‘for which the cost of labour normally accounts for at least 50 % of the total contract value’ (PPA, Article 6.10). Catering services meeting that condition would fall under the higher weight.

Public buyers may derogate from both the BPQR method and the minimum weights ‘where the quality of the product, service or works procured can be ensured’ through specifications, conditions for performance, or a combination of instruments (PPA, Article 98.5). They must state in the public summary of competition which of these grounds they rely on. The explanatory memorandum calls this a ‘comply or explain’ mechanism. Separately, the market price used to spot abnormally low tenders must include ‘all costs such as the cost of labour and working conditions’ (PPA, Article 101.1, letter ‘b’).

Canteens and catering, outside competition

The special procedure lets public buyers award a contract ‘by requesting a solution directly from one or more economic operators without the need for a competitive process or prior publication of information on the tender’ (PPA, Article 46.1). Among the cases where it may be used, the proposal lists hotel and restaurant services and a series of CPV codes, including ‘Catering services’, ‘Canteen services’, ‘School catering services’, ‘School-meal service’ and ‘Meals-on-wheels services’ (PPA, Article 47, letter ‘c’, point ‘ii’).

Recital 24 gives the reason: ‘Given its very limited cross-border dimension’, these services are subject to a direct award procedure ‘under which public buyers have wide leeway to take into account and accommodate food-specific considerations’. The correlation table traces Articles 46 and 47 to Article 32 of directive 2014/24/EU (PPA, Annex VIII, Part A). That article, on the negotiated procedure without prior publication, did not cover catering services among its grounds. These services also do not appear in Annex VI, which lists the social, health and educational services subject to the EUR 750 000 threshold.

This choice has three consequences:

• transparency is only ex post, through the public summary of result and ‘a justification for the decision of the public buyer’ (PPA, Article 110.4, letter ‘d’);
• the text does not say whether the BPQR method and its minimum weights apply when a single operator is invited; the only safeguard is the general reference to ‘principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and transparency’ (PPA, Article 46.2);
• the food quality of school and hospital canteens would depend mostly on each public buyer’s discretion and on national rules.

Division into lots is also relevant for small producers. ‘Public buyers shall consider whether to divide contracts into lots’ (PPA, Article 100.1), taking into account ‘increasing participation of SMEs’ (PPA, Article 100.2). Lots below EUR 80 000 for supplies or services may be awarded outside the Regulation, within a ceiling of 20% of the aggregate value (PPA, Article 100.4). Member States may make division into lots compulsory (PPA, Article 100.7).

No pathway to binding food criteria

The Commission may adopt delegated acts making green procurement requirements mandatory. That power is limited to products covered by the Union acts listed in Annex VII, ‘Where diverging requirements of environmental characteristics create a real risk of fragmentation of the internal market or in the presence of a need to foster the demand’ (PPA, Article 54.2). Annex VII lists eight acts: construction products, ecodesign, batteries, packaging, net-zero technologies, CO2 standards for heavy-duty vehicles and for cars, and tyre labelling. Food is not among them. None of the delegated powers listed in Article 141.2 concerns Article 53.

The explanatory memorandum describes a policy option (ESI.3) that ‘makes the BPQR with minimum quality weights compulsory with no opt-out, introduces binding Member State targets and reporting obligations’. The proposal did not take this route. As a result, the SPP food criteria examined earlier on Food Times remain a voluntary reference (Dongo, 2025).

European preference and food supplies

Public buyers may ‘require that the goods, services and works offered originate in the Union or be covered goods’ (PPA, Article 73.2, letter ‘a’). They may also ‘reject a tender where the value of Union or covered goods, services or works contained in the tender is below 50 % of the total estimated value of the tender’ (PPA, Article 73.2, letter ‘c’). The origin of goods follows the Union Customs Code (PPA, Article 74.2). Preference does not apply where it would force the buyer ‘to acquire goods, services or works at disproportionate costs’ (PPA, Article 76, letter ‘d’).

For food supplies, this means Union origin can be required. Origin within the Union, however, cannot be used to discriminate between Member States (PPA, Article 4.2). ‘European’ and ‘local’ therefore remain separate concepts.

Links with the circular economy

The environmental objectives of green procurement include ‘the transition to a circular economy, including through bioeconomy’ (PPA, Article 50.2, letter ‘d’). Specifications and criteria may concern ‘reuse’, ‘the use of secondary raw materials’ and ‘waste prevention’ (PPA, Article 51). Conditions for performance may cover ‘the handling of waste, compliance with sustainability due diligence and reporting in the execution of the contract, or other requirements in a circular economy’ (PPA, Article 104.2, letter ‘a’).

For catering, these provisions give a legal basis to the food waste prevention plans, flexible portioning and surplus redistribution discussed on Food Times (Dongo, 2026a). They fit into the framework of the binding food waste reduction targets introduced with the revision of the Waste Framework Directive (Dongo & Sampalean, 2025).

The proposal also amends sectoral acts. It removes the words ‘procurement criteria’ from Article 11.1 of directive 2008/98/EC (PPA, Article 147.7). It deletes Article 63 of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), regulation (EU) 2025/40, and redirects references to it to Article 54 of the PPA (PPA, Article 147.5). Since the PPWR is listed in Annex VII, mandatory delegated requirements on packaging, including in canteens, remain possible. Mandatory requirements on the food itself do not. On operators’ responsibilities under the PPWR, see Dongo and Della Penna (2026).

Stakeholders’ positions IFOAM Organics Europe

IFOAM Organics Europe welcomes the explicit recognition of the role of organic products (Bio Eco Actual, 2026). Its president, Dóra Drexler, argues that ‘every euro invested as a one-time investment in sustainable food procurement can generate up to 35 euros of saving on health costs alone annually’, citing unspecified ‘case studies’. According to its director, Eduardo Cuoco, the move to BPQR ‘leaves more room for public buyers and national authorities to favour high-quality products such as organic’.

IFOAM Organics Europe also raises three criticisms. BPQR ‘is weakened by broad derogation clauses’, which corresponds to Article 98.5. ‘The definition of ‘quality’ is too vague’. And the proposal ‘does not provide a pathway for environmental or social criteria to become binding in the future’, which corresponds to the absence of food from Article 54 and Annex VII. On the organic sector’s regulatory context, see Dongo (2026b).

Buy Better Food manifesto

The manifesto for minimum mandatory standards in public canteens was coordinated by ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) with the NGOs of the EU Food Policy Coalition, including IFOAM Organics Europe (ICLEI, 2022). It proposes seven criteria:

• meals based on dietary guidelines;
• ‘At least 20% of procured food is certified as organic’;
• ‘At least 10% of food originates from small-scale farmers’;
• a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through more plant-based food, less waste and a low-carbon chain;
• full compliance with decent working conditions;
• ‘At least 25% of the products typically originating from countries outside Europe, such as bananas, coffee and tea, shall be fairly traded’;
• higher animal welfare standards.

None of these quantitative targets appears in the proposal. The PPA uses no mandatory shares: it offers optional criteria (Article 53), an award method with derogations (Article 98), and, for catering services, a procedure without competition (Articles 46 and 47).

Open points for the co-legislators

The proposal now follows the ordinary legislative procedure, interinstitutional file 2026/0265 (COD). The points most relevant to the food system are:

• whether to add food to Annex VII, or create a specific empowerment under Article 53, so that minimum requirements can be set by delegated acts;
• whether the BPQR method and its minimum weights apply to catering and canteen services awarded under Articles 46 and 47;
• how to define ‘organisation of the food supply chain’ and relate it to the definitions in regulation (EU) 2026/1739.

Dario Dongo

References

EU legislation and legislative proposals

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Consolidated text: 16/10/2025. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/2025-10-16

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. Consolidated text: 01/01/2026. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/24/2026-01-01

European Commission. (2026a). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on public contracts and concessions, repealing Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1370/2007, (EU) 2023/1542, (EU) 2024/1157, (EU) 2024/1252, (EU) 2024/1735, (EU) 2024/1781, (EU) 2024/2847, (EU) 2024/3110 and (EU) 2025/40, and Directives 2008/98/EC, (EU) 2019/882, (EU) 2022/2381, (EU) 2023/1791 and (EU) 2024/1760 (Public Procurement Act). COM(2026) 590 final, 2026/0265 COD. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-public-contracts-and-concessions_en

European Commission. (2026b). Annexes 1 to 8 to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on public contracts and concessions (Public Procurement Act). COM(2026) 590 final. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-public-contracts-and-concessions_en

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC. OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj

Stakeholder positions

Bio Eco Actual. (2026, September 10). EU Public Procurement Act recognises the role of organic food. https://www.bioecoactual.com/en/2026/09/10/eu-public-procurement-act-recognises-organic-food/

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. (2022). Manifesto for establishing minimum standards for public canteens across the EU. Buy Better Food. https://buybetterfood.eu/documents/sustainable-food-procurement-manifesto

Food Times articles

Dongo, D. (2025, December 12). Public food procurement, EU sustainability criteria. Food Times. https://www.foodtimes.eu/food-system/eu-sustainable-food-procurement-criteria/

Dongo, D. (2026a, January 21). Food waste prevention in Sustainable Public Procurement. Food Times. https://www.foodtimes.eu/food-system/waste-prevention-public-procurement/

Dongo, D. (2026b, January 5). Organic farming: the EU roadmap. Food Times.https://www.foodtimes.eu/food-system/organic-farming-eu-roadmap/

Dongo, D. (2026c, August 6). Regulation (EU) 2026/1739: ‘fair’, ‘equitable’ and ‘short supply chain’ claims, written contracts, meat sounding. Food Times. https://www.foodtimes.eu/food-system/regulation-eu-2026-1739-farmers-food-supply-chain/

Dongo, D., & Della Penna, A. A. (2026, July 3). PPWR: the responsibility of the brand owner. Food Times. https://www.foodtimes.eu/food-system/ppwr-food-packaging-responsibility/

Dongo, D., & Sampalean, I. (2025, April 10). Food loss and waste targets in the proposed EU Directive. Food Times. https://www.foodtimes.eu/food-system/food-loss-and-waste-targets-in-the-proposed-eu-directive/