• Seven states have passed packaging EPR laws: Maine, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. Several more (Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut) are conducting needs assessments.

• Circular Action Alliance (CAA) has been selected as the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) in California, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maryland. Washington is in the process of forming its PRO.

• Active producer requirements: Oregon, Colorado, California, and Minnesota all had reporting or registration deadlines in 2025. Oregon became the first state to issue invoices and collect producer fees. Click here for an anticipated fee structure for Oregon.

• Truth in Labeling (SB 343): California’s final findings confirm that LDPE and HDPE thin film (poly mailers, bags, films) are not compliant and must update recyclability labeling practices. All brands selling into California must comply by October 4, 2026.

★ EPR Compliance

With four states already requiring action in 2025, compliance is not hypothetical. If you sell into CA, CO, OR, or MN, you must be registered and prepared for reporting.

1. Check if you’re obligated. Most states exempt <$1–5M revenue or <1 ton packaging.

2. Register with CAA (or state PRO) by deadlines.

3. Improve internal data tracking systems. Ensure you have access to data on your packaging suite and volumes sold by state.

4. Report packaging data on schedule—weight, material, by state.

• Prefer SMRM (SKU-specific BOMs) for accuracy.

• Use ABOM or apportionment only as temporary solutions.

5. Budget for fees. Plan for 0.5–1% of revenue (≈20–40% uplift on packaging spend).

6. Track eco-modulation guidance and proactively redesign packaging to maximize recyclability and post-consumer recycled content, reduce volume, and eliminate problem materials.

7. Stay engaged in rulemaking and legislative updates.

You can use resources like this guide, Sustainable Packaging Coalition, Circular Action Alliance, and each state’s EPR page to track legislation and deadlines.

The brands that move early will avoid last-minute scrambles, inflated fees, and reputational risk. Make EPR compliance a 2025 priority.

★ Material Bans

Don’t wait for enforcement. Transition away from banned materials (polystyrene, PVC, PFAS, thin film plastic), build PCR into your packaging strategy, and explore right-sizing now.

Proactive steps not only keep you compliant but also lower future costs under eco-modulation and EPR.

★ Truth in Labeling: SB 343

• Audit claims across all packaging.

• Remove recyclability symbols from ineligible items (like poly mailers, bubble mailers, and thin film).

• Partner with EcoEnclose to replace non-compliant materials and redesign packaging before the 2026 deadline.

• Document claims carefully with strong recordkeeping and substantiation.

Accurate labeling isn’t just about avoiding fines. It’s about credibility. Consumers and regulators alike are demanding truth

Read our frequently asked questions about US Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility laws.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is now one of the most significant and fast-moving packaging regulations in the U.S. It represents a fundamental shift in who bears the cost of packaging waste: moving it away from taxpayers and municipalities, and placing it on the companies that design, sell, and profit from packaging.

While EPR has existed in the U.S. for decades for products like paint, batteries, and mattresses, what’s new is EPR specifically for packaging and paper products. Globally, packaging EPR is well established in Canada and the European Union. In just the past four years, the U.S. has gone from having zero laws in this space to seven states with active or passed EPR frameworks, with more advancing studies or bills each year.

What EPR Requires

At its core, packaging EPR laws require producers to:

• Join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO): Typically a nonprofit that manages compliance on behalf of all obligated producers.

• Report packaging data: Type, weight, and recyclability of all covered materials put into that state.

• Pay fees: Based on the volume and sustainability profile of packaging.

These fees are then used to fund recycling system upgrades, consumer education, and infrastructure improvements. Many laws also introduce source reduction goals and recycling performance targets, tying fees directly to circular outcomes.

Key Concepts

Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

A PRO manages data collection, calculates and collects fees, and distributes funds into system improvements. Most U.S. states to date have selected the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the designated PRO, creating a national through-line for compliance.

Producer

Definitions vary by state, but liability generally falls on:

• Brand owners selling packaged goods into a state.

• Importers/distributors if the brand owner is not U.S.-based.

• Retailers in cases like shopping bags or food serviceware.
  
  

Exemptions typically apply to very small businesses (under $1–5 million in revenue, or under 1 ton of packaging annually).

Eco-Modulation

Eco-modulation adjusts producer fees to incentivise environmentally conscious packaging design. Brands using highly recyclable formats, higher post-consumer recycled content, or optimized packaging may pay lower fees.

Conversely, packaging that disrupts recycling streams, contains toxic substances, or lacks recyclability may carry higher fees.

Where EPR Exists Today

As of October 2025, seven states have enacted packaging-specific EPR laws:

• Maine
• Oregon
• California
• Colorado
• Minnesota
• Maryland
• Washington

All require producers to join a PRO, report data, and begin paying fees within the next 1–5 years. While the timelines vary, the direction is clear: packaging EPR is no longer theoretical. It’s here, it’s expanding, and compliance is mandatory.

Every state’s EPR program has its own timeline, scope, and quirks. Here are the most important details to know right now.

Oregon

Oregon was the first state to actually collect EPR fees, making it the proving ground for U.S. packaging stewardship. Its Recycling Modernization Act emphasizes truth in labeling and long-term recycling targets, while giving CAA responsibility for initial implementation.

• Reporting deadline for 2024 data: March 31, 2025 (with a grace period through April 30).

• Program officially began July 1, 2025—the first state to collect fees.

• First invoices issued summer 2025, estimated $0.17–$0.23 per pound of covered material.

• Uniform statewide recycling list launched July 1, 2025 (e.g., pizza boxes, screw-top caps added).

• Strong eco-modulation rules in place, requiring LCAs from top producers.

Colorado

Colorado’s 2022 law created a fully producer-funded statewide recycling system with broad scope, including packaging, paper, and food serviceware. Its program is designed to reimburse local governments while driving packaging redesign through eco-modulation.

• Producer registration with CAA required by July 1, 2025.

• First reporting deadline: July 31, 2025.

• Program officially begins January 1, 2026.

• Covers packaging plus food serviceware, making it broader than Oregon’s.

• Draft eco-modulation bonus schedule (Aug 2025) includes credits for refill/reuse systems, PCR, optimization, and clear labeling; penalties for non-recyclable formats. Finalized by Dec 2025.

California (SB 54)

California’s SB 54 is the most expansive EPR law in the U.S., setting aggressive plastic reduction and recyclability mandates. It also goes further than most states in layering eco-modulation and chemical restrictions into its framework.

• Producers must register with CAA by September 5, 2025.

• Reporting portal opened September 15, 2025.

• Proposed reporting deadline: November 15, 2025 (for 2023 data).

• Covered materials guidance expanded Sept 2025, including coated paperboard categories.

• Polystyrene containers banned in 2025 for failing to meet PCR requirements.

• Eco-modulation will penalize packaging with Prop 65 chemicals and reward high-PCR, standardized, recyclable packaging.

Minnesota

Minnesota joined the EPR landscape in 2025, passing a law that combines strict compliance requirements with ambitious circularity targets. It uniquely regulates boat wrap while pushing all packaging toward recyclability or reuse by 2032.

• Producer registration deadline: July 1, 2025 (penalties up to $25,000/day for non-compliance).

• Stewardship plan due October 1, 2028.

• All packaging must be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2032.
  Uniquely, Minnesota also regulates boat wrap packaging.

Maine

Maine was the first state to pass packaging EPR back in 2021, and in 2025 passed a “fix-it” bill to harmonize its rules with other states. Its program centers on municipal reimbursement and will come online as the Stewardship Organization is selected.

• “Fix-It” bill passed June 2025 to harmonize with other state programs.

• Stewardship Organization RFP expected Sept 2025; contract final April 2026.

• Producers must report 2025 data by May 2026; first fees due Sept 2026.

Maryland

Maryland became the sixth state with packaging EPR in May 2025. Its law requires gradual reimbursement of local recycling costs, rising to 90% by 2030. It also explicitly includes eco-modulation to drive sustainable packaging.

• Law passed May 2025.

• Producer registration required by July 1, 2026.
  PRO plan due July 1, 2028.

• Reimbursements to local governments: 50% (2028) → 90% (2030).

• Covers primary, secondary, shipping packaging, and food-service ware.

Washington (WRAP Act)

Washington became the seventh state to adopt EPR for packaging and paper products with the WRAP Act in May 2025. Its framework emphasizes eco-modulation and a uniform recycling list, with reimbursements to local governments starting in 2030.

• Signed May 17, 2025.

• PRO formation by Jan 1, 2026.

• Producers must join by July 1, 2026.

• First payments expected 2030.

• Requires a uniform recycling list, strong eco-modulation, and responsible end markets.

In addition to the seven states that have already passed packaging EPR laws, several others are in the needs assessment stage. These studies evaluate existing recycling infrastructure, identify gaps, and explore how EPR could improve outcomes. While they do not create immediate obligations, they are a strong signal that legislation could follow within the next few years.

Why needs assessments matter:
They help states decide:

• What materials should be covered.

• How a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) might operate.

• What infrastructure investments are required.

• Which policy design is most effective for local conditions.

Current Needs Assessments Underway

• Hawaii (HB 750, 2025): Requires a comprehensive EPR needs assessment tailored to the state’s unique geography and waste management challenges. The first report is due December 31, 2028.

• Illinois (SB 1872, 2025): First report on packaging EPR feasibility due December 1, 2026. A bag ban bill is also under consideration, signaling momentum toward broader reforms.

• Massachusetts (H 926, 2025): Bill advancing with a report due January 15, 2026. The state has a long history of recycling leadership and is likely to follow through with formal legislation.

• Rhode Island (H 6207, 2025): Originally drafted as EPR legislation but amended into a needs assessment. Report due December 1, 2026.

• Connecticut (HB 6197, 2025): Would require the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to study the feasibility of EPR. If passed, the first report would be due January 15, 2027.

States to Watch

Even without formal needs assessments, advocacy groups in Iowa, New York, and New Jersey have been active in promoting EPR and related reforms. Each of these states could advance legislation in upcoming sessions.

★ What Brands Should Do Now

If you sell into states conducting needs assessments:

• Improve packaging data systems now, so you’re ready to respond quickly when laws pass.

• Monitor legislative updates—needs assessments often lead to bills within 1–2 years.

• Engage early with stakeholders (trade groups, NGOs, PROs-in-waiting) to influence how future programs are shaped.

Bottom line: Needs assessments are the first domino in the EPR chain. States studying the issue today are likely to be the ones passing binding legislation tomorrow.

Legal Challenges to EPR

On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW) filed a lawsuit against Oregon’s EPR law, claiming it burdens interstate commerce and creates a PRO monopoly. Other challenges may follow, but compliance deadlines remain in effect.

Legal uncertainty is real, but brands should not delay compliance in hopes that lawsuits change outcomes. Regulators are moving forward, and penalties for missing deadlines are steep.

Eco-Modulation in Action

Eco-Modulation is shifting from theory to practice:

• Oregon: Base fees (~$0.30/lb paper vs. ~$0.63/lb plastic film). Producers can earn bonuses for LCAs and sustainable redesign. Large producers must submit LCAs biennially.

• Colorado: Draft bonus schedule includes up to 10% fee reductions for PCR, refill/reuse, optimization, or reuse pilots. Maluses apply to packaging that disrupts recycling.

• California: Current draft outlines a plan to update fees for eco-modulated materials that will improve recyclability over the first two years of the program.

• Washington & Maryland: Newly passed, but both explicitly require eco-modulation as part of their PRO fee systems.

The writing is clear: eco-modulation is coming. Brands that redesign now will lower costs tomorrow and avoid paying penalties for outdated packaging.

While Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are reshaping who pays for packaging, material bans and fees directly reshape what packaging can (and cannot) be used. These policies are expanding quickly, targeting materials with high toxicity, low recyclability, or outsized litter impacts.

Outright Bans

Bans are the most definitive tool: once phased in, restricted materials can no longer be sold or distributed, with violations resulting in fines or penalties. Commonly banned items include:

• Polystyrene (Styrofoam): Used in food serviceware and protective packaging.

• PVC (polyvinyl chloride): Hard-to-recycle, with significant environmental health risks.

• PFAS (“forever chemicals”): Linked to toxicity and prohibited in packaging in many states.

• Single-use checkout bags: Thin-film plastic, and increasingly paper.

• Single-use straws and utensils.

• Oversized e-commerce packaging (via “right-sizing” legislation).

Spotlight: What’s Being Regulated

Plastic Bag Bans

One of the most widespread packaging policies in the U.S.:

• States with active bans: Maine, Connecticut, New York, Oregon.

• Cities with bans: Boston (MA), Jackson Hole (WY), Arlington (VA), among many others.

• Some laws include fees for paper or reusable alternatives.

Polystyrene (Styrofoam) Bans

Rapidly expanding at both state and city levels:

• Active in Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington.

• Covers food serviceware (cups, clamshells, trays) and protective packaging like peanuts or foam blocks.

PFAS Bans

The fastest-growing category of banned materials:

• More than a dozen states now prohibit intentionally added PFAS in food packaging.

• Expect broader prohibitions on PFAS across packaging types in coming year

At EcoEnclose, we proactively ensure all of our packaging is PFAS-free, ahead of these legislative trends.

Design-Based Packaging Laws

Beyond bans, legislators are targeting packaging design to drive waste reduction.

• PCR (Post-Consumer Recycled) Content Mandates

• California (AB 793): Plastic beverage bottles must contain 15% PCR today, 25% by 2025, and 50% by 2030.

• Washington: Requires 15% PCR in certain plastic packaging.

• New Jersey, Maine, Maryland: Have passed or proposed PCR minimums.

• PROs may also tie EPR fee reductions to high PCR usage.
  
  

• Right-Sizing Legislation

• New Jersey (SB S226): Prohibits large retailers from using shipping boxes more than twice the size of the product being shipped.

• Penalties: $250–$500 per violation.

• Watch for this trend to spread, particularly within EPR frameworks where packaging minimization is rewarded.

★ What Brands Should Do Now

Don’t wait for enforcement. Transition away from banned materials (polystyrene, PVC, PFAS, thin film plastic), build PCR into your packaging strategy, and explore right-sizing now.

Proactive steps not only keep you compliant but also lower future costs under eco-modulation and EPR.

Packaging labels aren’t just design details. They’re powerful signals to consumers. But decades of vague or misleading claims have created confusion, contamination, and growing mistrust.

Regulators are now stepping in. State truth-in-labeling laws, EPR frameworks, and an upcoming federal update to the FTC Green Guides are all converging to hold brands accountable for the accuracy of their claims.

Truth in Recyclability Labeling

The chasing-arrows symbol has long implied recyclability, even on packaging rarely accepted in U.S. recycling systems. Flexible plastics, coated paper, and multi-layer films are among the worst offenders.

California SB 343 is reshaping recyclability claims:

• Final Findings published (April 2025): Established which materials are eligible to carry recyclability labels.

• LDPE/HDPE thin films (poly mailers, bags): Deemed non-recyclable under state criteria.

• Compliance deadline: October 4, 2026. Brands must redesign packaging and clear non-compliant inventory.

• Ongoing updates: In August 2025, cartons were added to the eligible list in more counties, showing how findings will evolve over time.

• Enforcement: Noncompliance risks fines and potential higher EPR fees under PRO rules.

Note: Work with EcoEnclose to source your poly mailers, bubble mailers, or poly bags? We have your back. We are turning over our own designs and working with Enterprise clients to update branding to comply with the latest SB 343 updates.

Other states including New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois are developing similar truth-in-labeling laws tied directly to recycling access.

Compostability and Biodegradability Claims

Terms like “compostable” and “biodegradable” are also under stricter scrutiny. Misuse has misled consumers and disrupted composting facilities.

• California (AB 1201): Restricts “compostable” to materials that produce usable, non-toxic organic compost, excluding many bioplastics.

• Other state laws (e.g., Vermont, New Hampshire): Require third-party certification (like BPI) and prohibit deceptive claims such as “landfill biodegradable.”

Labeling Within Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Every U.S. packaging EPR law (California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, Washington) includes a labeling component. Common features include:

• Alignment with MRF lists: If facilities don’t accept it, it can’t be labeled recyclable.

• Fee adjustments and penalties for inaccurate claims.

• PRO oversight of end-of-life labeling, making accuracy a compliance requirement, not just a branding choice.

The FTC Green Guides (Federal)

The FTC Green Guides remain the closest thing to a national labeling standard. Last updated in 2012, they are under revision now, with new language expected in 2025–26. Updates are likely to:

• Set stricter definitions for recyclability and compostability.

• Address emerging claims like “climate-friendly” or “plastic neutral.”

• Clarify requirements for substantiation and recordkeeping.

Though not legally binding, the Guides are cited in enforcement actions and should be treated as essential compliance guardrails.

★ What Brands Should Do Now

• Audit claims across all packaging.

• Remove recyclability symbols from ineligible items (like poly mailers, bubble mailers, and thin film).

• Partner with EcoEnclose to replace non-compliant materials and redesign packaging before the 2026 deadline.

• Document claims carefully with strong recordkeeping and substantiation.

Accurate labeling isn’t just about avoiding fines. It’s about credibility. Consumers and regulators alike are demanding truth.

Extended Producer Responsibility

• Confirm if you’re an obligated producer. Generally, if you sell packaged products into these states and generate over $1–5M in revenue or more than 1 ton of packaging annually, you’re likely liable. Exemption thresholds vary by state. If you are unsure if you are considered an obligated producer in Oregon or California, check out CAA’s Producer Definition Guidance.

• Register with CAA (or state PRO) by the deadlines. If you are a non-exempt producer, register with Circular Action Alliance. There are no fees to register and minimal information is required. Four states already required registration or reporting in 2025. If you missed these deadlines, contact CAA immediately to mitigate penalties.

• Report your data. Oregon’s reporting deadline for 2024 data was March 31, 2025; Colorado’s was July 31, 2025; California’s is November 15, 2025; Minnesota’s was July 1, 2025. Brands are expected to report their packaging volumes into each state by weight and material categorization. Future reporting will be annual, and requirements will become clearer and more stringent over time.

• Budget for fees. Oregon has already invoiced producers (average $0.17–0.23 per pound of covered packaging). Colorado and California fees will come due in 2026, and Maryland and Washington follow later. Expect roughly 0.5–1% of annual sales, or 20–40% uplift on packaging spend.

• Strengthen internal systems for accurate reporting. Proxy data inflates fees. Move toward SKU-level, bill-of-materials reporting for defensible accuracy.

• Design with long-term eco-modulation in mind. Oregon already adjusts fees based on recyclability and LCAs. Colorado and California will follow with credits and penalties for PCR, reuse/refill, or problematic materials. While more clarification is needed, brands may benefit from starting redesigns today that lead to lower fees long-term.

Material Bans and PCR Requirements

• For brands with retail storefronts: Eliminate plastic retail bags where banned and consider moving to reusable alternatives. Where required, ensure systems are in place for bag fees.

• All brands: Eliminate problematic materials like PFAS, polystyrene, and PVC, which are being banned across multiple states. Monitor emerging PCR content laws (e.g., CA, WA, NJ) and right-sizing requirements (e.g., NJ shipping box law).

Truth in Labeling

• Review packaging against California’s SB 343 findings. If your packaging is not on the “eligible” list, remove recyclability claims or chasing arrows.

• Update records to substantiate recyclability claims.

• Plan redesigns well before the Oct 4, 2026 compliance deadline.

• If you work with EcoEnclose, rest assured that we are actively executing on these steps internally, and will be bringing this audit approach to all of your packaging over the next 6 months.

Whether you’re currently liable or not, staying up-to-date on legislative changes and proactively improving your packaging circularity and data collection will set your brand up for success.

Am I exempt or am I liable?

If you sell products with packaging into a state with EPR, assume you have obligations unless proven otherwise. That said, all EPR programs have exemptions:

• Nonprofits and government agencies are typically exempt.

• Specific products (baby food, medical goods, hazardous materials) are often exempt.

• Small businesses are exempt if they fall below revenue or tonnage thresholds.

State examples:

• Oregon: Exempt if < $5M total revenue or < 1 metric ton packaging sold in state.

• Colorado: Exempt if < $5.5M revenue or < 1 metric ton packaging sold in state.

• California: Exemption thresholds still being finalized, but current drafts suggest < $1M in gross sales.

Takeaway: Most mid-sized and enterprise brands will be liable. Always verify against the latest state guidance.

Which packaging solutions are covered?

Covered materials vary by state. For example:

• Oregon: Packaging and paper products; excludes food serviceware.

• Colorado: Packaging, paper, and food serviceware.

• California: Categories are still being finalized; CAA has released draft reporting templates.

Oregon & Colorado Covered Materials PDF

Who is the obligated producer when multiple companies are involved?

This is one of the most confusing aspects of EPR, and it varies by state. Circular Action Alliance has released guidelines to determine who is a producer under each state’s EPR program. General rules of thumb:

• Brand owner is usually responsible for primary packaging.

• Distributor or retailer may be responsible for shopping bags or food serviceware.

• Importers are liable if no U.S.-based brand owner exists.

Examples:

• Oregon vs. Colorado (paper grocery bags): In Oregon, the packaging supplier is obligated; in Colorado, the retailer using them is obligated.

• E-commerce marketplaces (e.g., Amazon): Brand is liable for primary packaging; marketplace may be liable for shipping packaging.

• 3PLs: Brands are responsible for their product and branded packaging; the 3PL may be responsible for overboxes or mailers they select.

• Food service distributors: Often the distributor is obligated, but if retail packaging is branded and shipped by the restaurant chain, the chain may be the obligated producer.

When in doubt, liability tends to fall on the brand owner. Gray areas exist—consult legal counsel or use tools like rePurpose’s liability assessment.

How do I calculate my data?

Two things must be calculated:

1. Weight of packaging per unit.

• SMRM (Specific Material Reporting Method): Uses exact Bill of Materials. Accurate, future-proof, and recommended.

• ABOM (Average Bill of Materials): Uses representative samples. Easier, but less accurate and riskier long-term.
  
  

2. Volume of packaging in each state.

• Apportionment (estimates): Use proxies (population, sales share, shipments). Acceptable but less precise.

• SSRM (State-Specific Reporting Method): Use actual ship-to or POS data. More accurate but requires strong systems.

Use SMRM + SSRM if possible; ABOM + apportionment can work as a stopgap.

What will fees look like?

• Oregon: Fee structures have been clarified under the current program plan. First invoices issued in 2025, averaging $0.17–$0.23 per pound of covered material.

• Colorado & California: Fee structures not yet public, but expected to be similar or higher.

Brands should budget 0.5–1% of annual sales (20–40% increase on packaging spend).

What is eco-modulation, and how will it affect me?

Eco-modulation adjusts fees based on packaging sustainability.

• Oregon: Uses Life Cycle Assessments. Top producers must submit LCAs; smaller producers can voluntarily do so to earn discounts.

• Colorado: Draft bonus schedule (Aug 2025) includes credits (up to 10%) for reuse/refill systems, PCR, optimization, and clear labeling. Penalties for non-recyclables. Final rules expected Dec 2025.

• California: Plan is still in development. Will add credits for PCR, standardized design, clear labeling, and maluses for Prop 65 chemicals. Base fees apply first; adjustments will phase in after data is collected.

Under these requirements, your design choices will directly impact your bottom line. Switching to recyclable formats and using PCR isn’t just sustainability, it’s a way to manage future costs.

At its best, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) can do more than shift costs. It can accelerate circularity. Well-designed programs have the potential to:

• Standardize recycling systems within a state, reducing consumer confusion.

• Align incentives around recyclability, recycled content, and responsible sourcing.

• Fund infrastructure upgrades that make recycling more effective and equitable.

• Improve consumer education through consistent labeling and outreach.

• Strengthen markets for recycled content by tying design decisions directly to end-of-life outcomes.

EPR links packaging choices to real-world recovery. It places both opportunity and pressure on brands to design packaging that truly closes the loop.

EPR is powerful, but U.S. implementations are still evolving and imperfect. Key challenges include:

• Fragmentation: Each state sets its own rules, PROs, and reporting requirements. This patchwork increases complexity, especially for small and mid-sized brands.

• Consumer cost: Though fees are levied on producers, they are often passed downstream. While typically modest, they raise questions about transparency and equity.

• Narrow incentives: Most laws emphasize recyclability, which can unintentionally favor materials like paper (recyclable but carbon-intensive) over certain plastics with lower footprints.

• Lagging innovation: Frameworks based on today’s recycling infrastructure risk discouraging new materials and technologies (e.g., advanced biopolymers, black plastics) that could become viable in the future.

Takeaway: EPR is a critical step toward circularity, but not a silver bullet. Brands should embrace it as part of a broader strategy that balances recyclability with carbon impact, supply chain resilience, and material innovation.

While U.S. laws are advancing quickly, global packaging regulations are also tightening. For brands selling internationally, understanding these frameworks is essential.

EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)

The EU’s PPWR (Regulation (EU) 2025/40) entered into force in February 2025 and will apply broadly from August 2026. It is one of the most ambitious packaging laws in the world.

Key Provisions:

• Waste reduction targets: –5% by 2030; –10% by 2035; –15% by 2040.

• Design for recyclability: All packaging must be recyclable by 2030, graded on recyclability performance. Restrictions will tighten for lower grades.

• Minimum recycled content: Binding thresholds for plastics, with verification methods due by 2026.

• Minimisation rules: By 2030, empty space ratio in e-commerce packaging must be ≤50%.

• Reuse and refill targets: Begin in 2030, particularly for beverages and transport packaging. Hospitality venues must offer reusable options.

• Labelling: EU-wide disposal pictograms and QR codes begin in 2026, with full rollout by 2028.

• Deposit return systems: Required for beverage containers ≤3L by 2029 unless collection thresholds are met.

• Compostables: Specific formats (e.g., coffee pods, produce stickers) must be compostable within set timelines.

★ What Brands Should Do Now

• Assess portfolios against recyclability rules and prepare for 2030 requirements.

• Model packaging sizes to meet minimisation thresholds.

• Plan sourcing strategies for recycled content.

• Prepare for harmonised labeling and digital QR requirements.

• Pilot reuse/refill systems where feasible.

The EU PPWR sets a global benchmark: by 2030, all packaging sold in the EU must be recyclable, with strict minimisation and reuse targets.

Canada’s EPR and Plastics Registry

Canada is harmonizing packaging regulations through both federal and provincial measures. Here is an at-at-glance breakdown of their current requirements.

Federal Plastics Registry (FPR):

• Mandatory annual reporting under CEPA begins Sept 2025 (covering 2024 data).

• Producers must report plastics put on market, collected, diverted, and final fate.

• Exemption for businesses under 1 ton/year.

Provincial EPR:

• Ontario: Transition to full producer responsibility concludes by Dec 2025.

• Québec: Modernising deposit-refund and collection; overlapping costs expected in 2025–26.

• British Columbia (Recycle BC): Longstanding PPP program, achieving ~45% plastics recovery.

• New Brunswick & Nova Scotia: Province-wide curbside collection programs rolling out in 2025.

★ What Brands Should Do Now

• Register with the Federal Plastics Registry by Sept 2025.

• Confirm provincial PRO memberships (e.g., Circular Materials, ÉEQ, Recycle BC).

• Budget for “double-pay” scenarios during provincial transitions.

• Align labeling and design strategies with EU PPWR to streamline compliance across markets.

Together, the EU PPWR and Canada’s EPR framework signal a global future: packaging must be designed for recyclability, reduced in volume, and transparently reported. Brands operating across borders should unify packaging strategies now to avoid fragmented compliance costs later.

The U.S. packaging landscape is shifting at unprecedented speed. Compliance is no longer theoretical—it’s here. Oregon is already billing producers, Colorado and California deadlines have begun, and more states are lining up.

• Eco-modulation is real: Design decisions you make today will directly impact your costs tomorrow.

• SB 343 is strict: Labeling claims must match reality, or brands will face fines and higher EPR fees.

• Global context matters: The EU’s PPWR and Canada’s EPR laws mean multinational brands should design for overlapping standards, not just U.S. rules.

At EcoEnclose, we partner with brands to:

• Clarify liability and exemptions.

• Build robust packaging data systems.

• Redesign packaging for recyclability, PCR, and right-sizing.

• Navigate PRO reporting, fee structures, and eco-modulation incentives.

The bottom line: EPR is here to stay. Brands that act early will not only avoid penalties but also lower costs, strengthen credibility, and lead the shift toward true circularity. Those who wait will be forced to scramble.