CHICAGO, July 11, 2025 — An emerging wave in packaging regulation is giving new currency to the old maxim about the devil being in the details. But even with the particulars largely undetermined, food-away-from-home businesses can sense an impending mess.
At least seven states have already passed laws that fundamentally shift responsibility for collecting or recycling food packaging from the consumer to the producer. That includes covering the recovery costs previously shouldered by local governments or private recycling businesses.
Known as Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, the trend is forcing FAFH manufacturers (and sometimes others lower in the supply chain) to precisely tabulate what packaging they’ve sold or used to get supplies to their customers.
The calculations are the initial steps in determining what packaging suppliers will be required to contribute for collecting or recycling materials after their end-use. That usually means paying a fee, though in some instances the obligation extends to collecting used packages and facilitating recycling or reuse.
There are some preexisting issues that make compliance difficult. Basically, a system needs to already exist in order to deliver on the laws’ intentions. In most instances, that foundation has yet to be put in place.
Several of the new state mandates call for the formation by packaging suppliers of what’s called a Producer Responsibility Organization, or PRO. The operation would be a freestanding body to set record-keeping standards, collect the money, and distribute it according to its charter. That could mean allocating money directly to recycling programs or providing the funds to government for other environmentally focused purposes, like litter reduction or recycling education.
Although a number of the laws call for the formation of PROs, there’s little additional standardization.
For instance, the fees assessed on packaging are in all cases based on volume. But in one jurisdiction, that amount may be calculated by weight. In others, the charges are determined by the number of containers used.
The fees themselves are for the most part a work in progress. In European nations with an EPR policy in place, packaging manufacturers typically pay a surcharge of 0.1% to 2%, according to Zero Waste Europe, a conservation advocacy group.
The variation in state laws is expected to pose a patchwork of responsibilities for U.S. packaging suppliers and their customers.
Also, because the laws require some sort of infrastructure development, implementation dates don’t match state to state. California’s phased-in requirements extend to 2032. Oregon is in the throes of meeting its new EPR requirements at the moment. Producers in Colorado have a July 31 deadline for submitting reports on their volumes and registering with the state’s PRO.
The other states with EPR requirements on the books are Maine, Washington, New Jersey, and Minnesota.
Legislation was narrowly defeated this summer in New York’s State Assembly after the state Senate approved a bill with several unique features, including an exemption for small packaging manufacturers.
Massachusetts and Connecticut both set up study groups to assess the impact of EPR and how the concept could be adopted.
About 16 other states have EPR legislation in place, but the focus there is largely on electronic goods like old computers and televisions.
Proponents point out that the U.S. is a laggard in embracing EPR. Members of the European Union have been requiring packaging producers there for years to fund the collection and recycling of their products.
Yet opponents point out that the recycling infrastructure is in place overseas. Plus, consumers there have embraced recycling as a normal household routine. That willingness to sort and recycle refuse isn’t nearly as strong in the U.S., they contend.
Without that buy-in from the ultimate end user, the opponents argue, EPR will ultimately fail. All it will do is raise the price of packaging and the food it contains.
Even with Europeans’ stronger propensity to recycle, studies show that EPR across the Atlantic has yet to realize its promise. According to a report issued in April by Zero Waste Europe, packaging waste in the EU has soared by 20% on a per capita basis over the last 20 years.
Opponents also note that the U.S. already has a glut of recycled and recyclable materials. The ultimate goal of EPR is to create a product lifecycle where a package moves from supplier to processor to retailer to consumer and then back to the supplier for reuse.
But that, they contend, is still an ideal. Far more details for making that objective a reality will have to be addressed.
As Managing Editor for IFMA The Food Away from Home Association, Romeo is responsible for generating the group's news and feature content. He brings more than 40 years of experience in covering restaurants to the position.
Cover image courtesy: Closed Loop Project