By 2030, nearly a fifth of the U.S. population is expected to besubject to EPR laws, but packaging suppliers and the cold foods companies who rely on them cannot wait years – or in some cases, even months – to comply.

EPR – or extended producer responsibility – is legislation where producers (brands, manufacturers and suppliers) are responsible for the end-of-life costs associated with their products, encouraging sustainable design and smart packaging infrastructure.

As of this month, seven U.S. states have enacted packaging-focused EPR laws, each with its own timeline and compliance goals.

Oregon became the first statewide program, with Colorado, California, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington following suit. A handful of states already have reporting and fee structures in place, with several – including Maine, Maryland and Washington – imposing deadlines as soon as this summer.

Fees are paid to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), responsible for calculating costs following the state law.

Food packaging formats that are not recyclable, compostable, or reusable will face higher fees to support the added work needed to recycle, compost or reuse the package. Fees may be lowered for packaging with post-consumer recycled (PCR) content or original packaging made of highly recyclable materials.

A patchwork of state laws combined with food safety concerns, like barrier properties, and the availability of PCR content for food grade plastics, all pose challenges for producers of refrigerated and frozen foods.

“The lack of standardization across these laws creates serious challenges for the industries tasked with complying with them, including food brands,” said Lynn Dyer, president of AMERIPEN, a packaging industry trade association. “States vary by geography, population, density, consumer habits, and waste and recycling infrastructure and capacity. Legislators are trying to create EPR laws that address the unique needs of their states, resulting in significant differences in each state’s version of EPR. We’re seeing different definitions of key terms, different methods for assessing states’ needs, different fee structures and deadlines, and different goals, mandates and incentive structures, among numerous other aspects of EPR.”

EPR is accelerating the shift toward mono-material structures and driving renewed interest in lightweighting and PCR content.

Some states don’t just incentivize recycled content; they require it. California’s Senate Bill 54 mandates minimum PCR content and recyclability standards, with the state collecting producer fees starting in 2027 under its EPR program.

EXPLORE MORE

“Brands are absolutely looking to redesign packaging to mitigate their fee impact where possible,” said Emily Williams, sustainability and partnership leader at TC Transcontinental Packaging. “Especially for (cold foods) contained within flexible packaging. Due to organic residue, it is very difficult to recycle these materials. However, moving to recyclable formats can provide food brands with fee related benefits in an EPR system. This can be seen via the fee tables for both Oregon and Colorado.” 

A study released last month by TC Transcontinental found 55% of consumers say they prioritize brands using more sustainable packaging but 69% worry about how packaging materials may affect product safety.

“The biggest misconception is that EPR is simply a reporting requirement, when in reality, it can be a competitive advantage for food brands,” said Sarah Paleg, sustainability director at Amcor. “Even companies that aren’t an obligated producer are often involved already, as they are responding to data requests from customers. Companies should rely on their packaging suppliers to bring the data, technical expertise and practical recommendations needed to identify EPR-related opportunities, with internal packaging teams then prioritizing and implementing the changes that best fit the business.

Clear packaging design and consumer education help drive recovery rates and reduce contamination, supporting compliance and circularity.

“Including clear recycling cues for consumers helps to boost correct packaging disposal, improve material recovery and ultimately supports lower EPR fees. Several large brands now bring converters into early design phases, ensuring packaging decisions align with evolving EPR requirements and help avoid costly redesigns later,” said Samantha Kappalman, vice president of corporate affairs and public policy, Tetra Pak U.S. and Canada. “Converters are critical innovation partners in a rapidly shifting regulatory and sustainability landscape. They often have visibility into materials science, scale economics, manufacturing constraints and upcoming regulatory pressures in ways food brands may not.”

Multiple departments inside an organization should “own” EPR compliance, experts said.

“Food companies should be reviewing the laws, regulations, and implementation plans as they become available from the Circular Action Alliance and establishing a roadmap of their packaging options. Legal and finance for the compliance and financial planning component for the fees owed. Sustainability and packaging for the packaging development strategies. They must all work together for long-term success,” Williams said. “California is the state everyone is waiting on. We still need final regulations and then a plan from CAA. It will be a challenging state for implementation. This is active ongoing work across the industry right now, and many are waiting to see what happens with California before fully converting to alternatives.”

With no federal law in place, two more states (New Hampshire and Wisconsin) have recently introduced bills.

“Producers are currently facing significant challenges in complying with EPR date reporting requirements. We're hoping that the Circular Action Alliance—the PRO in five states so far—will identify lessons from current EPR programs on what is working well and what isn't, so we can advocate for efficient solutions in other states going forward,” Dyer said.

An ideal EPR system should do more than collect fees and should link “packaging design, recycling system performance and real-world infrastructure improvements based on live data and system information,” Kappalman said. “It sets clear standards based on a baseline, reduces consumer confusion and includes all types of packaging to best improve the entire system.”

For cold foods processors and manufacturers, EPR is best viewed as both an expense and an investment.

“EPR certainly entails compliance costs, including fees, reporting requirements and regulatory expertise,” said Danielle Waterfield, policy director and general counsel at AMERIPEN. “The associated costs should be incorporated into companies’ overall compliance programs and managed alongside other compliance obligations. But EPR can also be an opportunity for companies to identify efficiencies that may ultimately streamline production and lower costs. Companies can choose to make strategic investments to ensure compliance and improve the bottom line.