Packaging Inspection Report: 3 Types of Genuine Classifications: Printing Factory-Provided QS / CoA / Commissioned Inspection — Which One Does the Client Need to Avoid Compliance Risks?

Last November, the owner of a mooncake gift box factory in Wuxi slapped a report printed with "Jiangsu XX Testing Technology Co., Ltd." on the desk and asked me, "Mr. Zhang, our customer says the report we used before was fake and wants us to issue a new QS report; otherwise, they won't place any orders next year. Can you just put a stamp on it?"

I looked at the report cover—it was a Commissioned Testing Report for Food Contact Materials issued to our company by the customer last year, complete with the CMA seal, CMA number, tester’s signature, and test date. However, what the customer referred to as the "QS report" meant the periodic supervision inspection report accompanying the factory production license (SC certificate), organized by the local market regulation authorities and conducted once a year before license renewal. These two documents are entirely different.

This is not an isolated case. Today, among the three food packaging factories in Wuxi, two have received requests from customers stating that the “report is incorrect,” and the reason in both cases is a failure to distinguish clearly between different types of reports. Let me clarify this issue: which type of report stamp the printing factory is authorized to affix, which report the customer needs for compliance, and the information gap between these two points—this is the aspect most likely to be overlooked in packaging certification.

Category 1: The QS (SC) Supervisory Inspection Report—Where Printing Plants Most Commonly Fail

QS stands for Food Production License. It was renamed SC in 2015, but customers still commonly refer to it as QS. This report is not issued with the printer’s own seal, nor can it be obtained by the customer independently. It is a type inspection report organized by the local market supervision authority when a food packaging customer applies for a production license.

Some customers ask the printing plant to “show us your QS report”—this is the wrong question to ask. As the producer of the packaging, the printing plant holds only a “Food Packaging Material Production License,” which is separate from the customer’s “Food” Production License. The printing plant holds an “Industrial Product Production License” (including subdivisions for plastic food packaging, paper packaging, glass packaging, etc.), but the samples tested for the printing plant’s license are packaging bags, boxes, and plastic containers produced by the printing plant itself; it does not test the food itself on the customer’s behalf.

Where are printing press owners most likely to fail? Three mistakes:

What should the printing factory do here? Check the customer's SC license and verify whether the “Food Category” listed on the SC license corresponds to the category of packaging to be produced (pastries, mooncakes, chocolate, candy, meat products, pickled vegetables, etc.). Check the SC license’s validity period. If the customer’s license has expired or they do not have one at all, the printing factory must reject the order outright—this is not excessive caution. Under the “joint accountability” mechanism introduced by the State Administration for Market Regulation in 2023, the printing factory, as an upstream supplier, must also sign a “Supply Confirmation” and enter it into the system. If a problem occurs, both the customer and the printing factory will be penalized.

Category II: CoA Report (Batch Product Quality Certificate) — the printer can issue it, but within certain limits

CoA is short for Certificate of Analysis. It serves as proof that a given batch of products meets the factory release standards and is attached to the batch when it leaves the factory. In the food packaging industry, a CoA typically contains 5 basic categories of information:

Can the printing plant affix its own quality inspection stamp to this report? Whether it should do so depends on two conditions:

Therefore, the reliable approach is: for items the printer can handle, the printer stamps them itself; for items the printer cannot handle, send them to a third-party CMA laboratory for testing. There are two fee arrangements: where the customer does not designate a supplier, the printer adds a 5-15% testing coordination fee to the quotation; where the customer designates a third party, the customer pays the testing fee, and the printer charges a sample-submission coordination fee of 200-500 yuan/batch.

Here is a real case for comparison. In October 2025, a customer in Suzhou producing flexible packaging for pickled and cured foods sent me a CoA stamped with the printing factory’s quality inspection seal, but the compression resistance data consisted only of the words “passed,” handwritten by the printing factory’s engineer. I conducted a secondary inspection for the customer and sent the samples to a CMA laboratory for testing. The burst strength was found to be 18% below the standard—the printing factory’s engineer had written “passed” based purely on feel. This incident caused the customer approximately RMB 72,000 in return and rework costs for 20,000 units. The printing factory ultimately compensated only RMB 4,000, but the customer moved all orders elsewhere starting the following year.

Type 3: Third-party entrusted inspection report—the printing factory assists with sample submission, but its official seal is not affixed

A third-party entrusted inspection report refers to a compliance test conducted by a CMA / CNAS-accredited laboratory designated by the customer or recommended by the printing plant. Among the three types of reports, it carries the greatest legal validity, and it is the type of report that the printing plant should be least likely to stamp with its own seal.

What the printing factory needs to do is:

A customer's willingness to pay for testing indicates that they place value on quality—and such customers should be valued by the printing plant. However, the printing plant should also clarify in advance: the testing cycle for the report typically takes 7-15 working days, while special items such as overall migration and plasticizer screening require 20-30 working days. This means customers must allow at least 1 month from placing the order to receiving the report. The printing plant should include the testing cycle in the contract terms to prevent customers from pressuring the plant to shorten delivery deadlines because they are unwilling to wait.

How Does a Printing Company Determine Which Version the Client Actually Wants?

When a customer comes to the printing plant asking for a "test report," the first thing the printing plant owner does is not look for a report template, but ask the customer three questions:

If the packaging is for listing on retail channels (supermarkets, convenience stores, or e-commerce platforms), the printer can provide a CoA report and submit samples to a third party for a GB 4806 report. If it is for the customer’s own SC annual inspection, the printer does not need to provide any reports, as the customer must handle the application independently. If it is for an export customer, the applicable standards depend on the destination country (FDA / EU 1935 / KFDA / JP Food Sanitation Act, etc.). The printer is responsible for sample submission and data support, while the customer is responsible for the entire compliance process, as this is beyond the printer’s control.

If the print shop owner has no clear understanding of this process, orders will inevitably be missed, or the customer will run into difficulties and make unreasonable demands. I recommend that every print shop create a "classification correspondence table for inspection reports" and post it in the sales office or include it as part of the customer onboarding SOP. Within 3 minutes, customers can understand for themselves which report to request and from whom. This is not embarrassing; on the contrary, it demonstrates the print shop’s professionalism.

Real Pricing Figures from These 3 Types of Report Printing Companies

Show the print shop owner a realistic quotation range so that they have a clear idea when preparing a quote:

If the customer proactively requests that the "testing fees be paid on their behalf," this should be included in the quotation rather than promised verbally, to avoid disputes later. If the customer says, "We will provide the test reports in the future, so deduct the testing fees from the printing factory's quotation"—the printing factory may agree, but the contract terms must clearly specify that the test reports provided by the customer must cover the corresponding models of the products undertaken by the printing factory, must be issued by a CMA / CNAS-accredited laboratory, and must include the full set of compliance items potentially required by the printing factory. Otherwise, the reports provided by the customer shall be deemed insufficient, and the printing factory shall not be responsible for any resulting compliance risks.

Further Reading

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)