A ceramic migration report is a short document with a long shadow: category, unit, method and sample identity each decide whether the paper proves your shipment or merely decorates it. Here is how to read one line by line, before your customer reads it first.
The skill matters because reports are the currency of food-contact compliance — US entry rests on 21 CFR 109.16, EU placement on 84/500/EEC, German retail on LFGB-scope limits — and because a surprising share of reports circulating in the trade are weaker than they look. This walkthrough is for buyers reviewing a laboratory report on lead and cadmium migration in ceramic tableware.
The header: who tested, for whom, against what
Start at the top. The laboratory's identity and accreditation establish whether the document is evidence at all; the report number and date establish whether it is current; and the commissioning party establishes who the work belongs to. A report dated two seasons ago, issued to a factory with no reference to your order, is a weak artefact no matter how good the numbers look. Confirm the header names the article family and — ideally — your purchase order or the golden sample that defines the programme.
The sample block: what the lab actually touched
Read the description as a lawyer would. Pieces tested, shapes, colours, decoration positions, batch reference. Photographs of the tested articles are a strong sign: they let you match the tested ware to the golden sample and to the cartons on your floor. The sentence you want to be able to write later is "these results describe the goods shipped" — and it is only writable when the sample block connects unambiguously to production.
The method block: the test that produced the numbers
The method line should be explicit. For US-scope work, ASTM C738: extraction with 4-percent acetic acid for 24 hours at 24°C, with instrumental analysis of the extract. For EU-scope work, the methods referenced to 84/500/EEC — EC No 636/2004 and the ISO 6486 series. For German scope, an LFGB-scope panel stating its parameters. A report that omits the method, or invents conditions that differ from these, has moved the goalposts; limits only mean something under the conditions they were set for.
The results block: numbers, units, categories
| Line on the report | What to verify | Red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Standard cited | 21 CFR 109.16, 84/500/EEC or LFGB scope, named exactly | "FDA approved" or "food safe" without a standard number |
| Category applied | Correct ware category per article: drinkware strictest in the US at 0.5 µg/mL; EU shallow ware cadmium 0.07 mg/dm² | Mugs assessed against plate limits |
| Units | µg/mL for US extracts; mg/dm² for EU surface basis; mg/L for German vessels | Unit missing, or numbers compared across systems |
| Results detail | Per-piece values, not only an average | Single averaged figure across unlike pieces |
| Limit column | Limit value printed next to each result, with units | A pass/fail tick with no numbers |
| Conclusion | Passes or fails against each named standard, per category | A blanket "compliant" covering all markets at once |
The caveats: what the report does not say
Every legitimate report closes with limitations, and the standard wording matters: results relate only to the items tested. That sentence is not small print — it is the boundary of the claim. It means the report does not cover future production, untested colours, or shapes absent from the sample set. Strong buyers use that boundary to plan retests on change events rather than treating one document as a permanent licence.
Six red flags worth acting on
- No laboratory identity or accreditation — the document cannot serve as evidence.
- Missing method or altered extraction conditions — the numbers are not comparable to the limits.
- Wrong category for the shape — a pass that would fail under the correct one.
- Cadmium absent while lead is reported — cadmium is the more common recall trigger in the EU.
- No batch or golden sample linkage — nothing ties results to your shipment.
- Report issued only to the factory, untraceable to your order — awkward in any dispute.
A test report is evidence only when four things hold: named standard, stated method, correct category, and samples traceable to production. Missing any one, you hold paper, not proof.
Our quality and compliance team prepares reports in exactly this review-ready form — third-party laboratory work, named standards, reports available on request. If you would rather receive documentation you can hand to a retailer without translation, start at request a quote; the review checklist above also pairs well with the US entry notes in our United States market guide.
Frequently asked questions
Is a factory's in-house test result acceptable?+
Treat in-house screening as process control, not as compliance evidence. Buyers, platforms and authorities expect third-party laboratory reports against named standards. In-house data is welcome when it shows the factory watches the same numbers between external tests; it does not replace them.
The report says "not detected". Does that mean zero?+
It means the result was below the method's detection limit, which the report should state. "Not detected" against a stated detection limit is a strong result; "not detected" without a stated limit is not interpretable. Ask for the detection limit to be printed with the result.
Can one report cover several SKUs?+
Yes, when the SKUs share the tested glaze and decoration system and each is assessed in its correct category — with each shape listed in the sample block. Coverage ends where the sample block ends: a new colour or shape family needs its own assessment.
What should I redact or keep when sharing reports with customers?+
Keep the standard, method, category, results and conclusion intact; share the full document rather than excerpts, because a cropped results table is how misquotation starts. Commercial terms on the commissioning page can be handled between the parties, but never edit the technical content.
