Can extended producer responsibility programs push food companies to use sustainable packaging?

This summer, Oregon became the first state in the country to implement an extended producer responsibility program for packaging, implementing a fee on all packaging materials that’s designed to help push more sustainable and recyclable products in place of hard-to-recycle plastics laden with toxic additives. For environmental and public health advocates, the program is a big win, but as other states try to pass and implement their own legislation, business associations and the plastic industry are fighting to keep these programs ineffective and in the background.

What is extended producer responsibility?

At the moment, companies choose their packaging so that their products can reach customers in peak condition at the lowest cost and look appealing enough to sell well, making durability, weight, appearance and cost of production the main concerns. And while some companies have made sustainability part of their branding, and use easily recyclable materials in their packaging, most only think about the costs and benefits of different materials in the first portions of their product’s lifecycle. But packaging materials last for a long time after the sale and use of the product; what happens to the packaging in the second half of its lifecycle, once it’s separated from the product within? That’s a question most companies typically don’t have to consider.

As a result, plastics — which fill the need for durable, clear, lightweight and inexpensive packaging — have become the standard for many products that could be packaged in other materials like paper, metal or glass.

While that’s good news for the corporate bottom line, it’s bad news for waste-management agencies and companies, as well as for the taxpayers and households that fund them. Recycling most plastics is more difficult and expensive than recycling other materials. And that means many plastics aren’t recycled at all, leaving everyone shouldering the ever-rising environmental and public health costs of plastic pollution.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR), as the name suggests, extends the responsibility for managing discarded packaging to the people who made it, rather than transferring that onus to consumers and the rest of the planet. By imposing a fee on manufacturers that varies by material type and weight, EPR not only helps defray the costs of dealing with packaging waste, it also incentivizes manufacturers to rethink the types of packaging they use. By implementing higher fees for materials that are difficult or impossible to recycle, EPR laws can help push companies to choose easy-to-recycle options like glass, cardboard or aluminum.

Composting could be a viable solution for some bioplastics, but there are relatively few facilities around the country that can actually process them. EPR programs could help develop better commercial composting infrastructure to ensure that compostable products aren’t just releasing methane in a landfill, but so far, they have not included them.

Existing EPR legislation also doesn’t account well for material safety. Many of the building blocks that make up plastics are carcinogenic, endocrine disruptors or otherwise toxic.

Packaging also frequently contains potentially harmful additives like phthalates, bisphenols and PFAS. These materials help grant stability, flexibility, greaseproofing and more to plastic and other materials, but they also complicate recycling: The contaminants can accumulate as materials become recycled, or even form new toxic compounds as plastics are processed for recycling.

Experts say that’s one area where EPR programs could help turn the tide. “We would like to see EPR legislation incentivize the use of safer plastics by increasing the fees on the most harmful polymers PVC and polystyrene, and materials that often contain harmful additives including phthalates, bisphenols and PFAS,” says Marty Mulvihill, chemist and co-founder of Safer Made, a venture capital fund investing in companies and technologies that reduce human exposure to harmful chemicals.

In the same vein, there’s debate over whether so-called chemical recycling should be considered a form of recycling under EPR rules. Despite its name, the process amounts to little more than incineration — chemical recycling only returns about 0.1-6 percent of the original waste stream as reusable plastic, with the rest becoming fuel that’s laden with both old plastic toxins and new ones generated in the process. Environmental and health advocates have warned that California’s latest proposed rules under SB 54 have weakened language that leaves room for chemical recycling facilities to qualify as recyclers, likely at the behest of plastic industry lobbyists.

Ultimately, these issues serve as a reminder that EPR laws alone won’t solve all the problems stemming from our overuse of plastic, and that the plastic industry will do whatever it can to avoid responsibility and regulation. However, as EPR programs begin rolling out in the U.S. (especially in large markets like California), they may prove to be an effective nudge that pushes manufacturers toward using other materials when possible rather than turning to plastic as a default.