.svg)
For years, sustainable packaging was a positioning choice. A brand could lean into it or not, and the cost of that choice showed up mostly in marketing — in how a package photographed, in what a label could claim, in whether a customer noticed. That era is ending. Across the United States, a wave of state-level Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws is turning packaging material into a recurring cost line, priced by exactly how hard that material is to actually recycle. Not how it's marketed. Not what the resin code says. How it behaves in the real world, at scale, in an actual recycling facility. We've tracked this shift as it moves from talking point to line item in From Regulation to Cost: What EPR Means for Packaging in 2026 — this piece goes deeper on the regulatory mechanics behind it.
California's SB 54 is the one getting the headlines, and for good reason — it's the largest program in the country, covering the largest market. But it's not the first, and it won't be the last. Understanding the shape of this shift matters more than tracking any single state's rulebook, because the direction is now unmistakable and it isn't slowing down.
Signed in 2022, California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act does something municipalities have wanted for decades: it moves the cost of packaging waste off city recycling budgets and onto the companies that put the packaging on the market in the first place. Producers register, report what they sell by material and format, and pay a fee scaled to how recyclable that packaging actually is — assessed against real, documented end markets and processing infrastructure in California, not against what a resin is theoretically capable of.
That last distinction is the one brands keep underestimating. A material can be chemically recyclable and still land in the highest fee tier, because the fee isn't pricing chemistry — it's pricing whether a material realistically gets collected, sorted, and reprocessed today. Flexible film is the clearest example: plastic bags and pouches are frequently framed as recyclable in a technical sense, but they consistently fail to clear that bar in practice — material recovery facilities struggle to sort them, contamination runs high, and end markets remain thin. We walked through exactly what that means for one of the most common formats in Why Apparel Brands Are Rethinking Plastic Polybags in California. Regulators have caught up to that reality, and the fee structures now reflect it. Rigid formats and paper-based packaging, by contrast, move through existing infrastructure cleanly — and the fee schedules reward that difference accordingly.
SB 54 draws the attention, but Oregon and Colorado are already collecting producer fees today, ahead of California's own program reaching full effect. Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and Maryland are each moving through their own phase-in timelines over the next several years, with more states expected to introduce similar legislation as the model proves workable. None of these programs coordinated on a single national standard — each has its own definitions, its own reporting cadence, its own fee structure. For any brand selling nationally, that means packaging decisions can no longer be optimized for one market and assumed to travel. A format has to hold up against a growing patchwork of state rules simultaneously, not against the easiest one.
What's notable isn't the differences between these programs. It's how consistently they agree on the fundamentals. Every state program built so far prices flexible plastic film well above paper and fiber. Every one rewards real-world recyclability over resin type. Every one treats packaging as a producer's ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time compliance box to check. That consistency, arrived at independently by different legislatures, is the strongest signal available that this isn't a California quirk — it's where the entire regulatory environment is converging.
Fee schedules aren't the whole story. California's SB 343 tightened what "recyclable" is even allowed to mean on a label, closing the gap between marketing claims and documented recycling infrastructure — a case for paper directly connected to the fee conversation, because it removes the option of asserting recyclability without backing it up. At the same time, momentum is building outside government entirely: retailer coalitions, industry sustainability alliances, and major supply chain partners are independently pushing toward the same recyclable-by-design standard, often faster than regulation requires. Brands are increasingly finding that their own customers, retail partners, and downstream vendors expect this shift regardless of which state's rules technically apply to them.
Court challenges and enforcement delays are part of this landscape too, and they will continue to be. But delay is not reversal. Every signal — legislative, judicial, commercial — points the same direction: toward packaging that is genuinely, verifiably recyclable in the infrastructure that exists today, not the infrastructure a company hopes will exist eventually.
It would be convenient to treat this as a simple plastic-versus-everything-else story, but the regulations themselves don't allow that shortcut, and brands shouldn't either.
- Compostable plastics face the same real-world test as recyclable ones: a label claim only holds up if the material is verifiably processable in infrastructure that actually exists at scale, and industrial composting access is, in most of the country, even thinner than film recycling access.
- Bio-based resins and mixed-material laminates marketed as "eco" often can't be sorted or reprocessed any more reliably than the conventional plastic they're replacing, which means they can land in the same high fee tiers and the same labeling scrutiny they were meant to avoid.
The bar these laws are actually setting isn't "not plastic." It's "provably processable, today, in documented infrastructure. Paper and fiber packaging clears that bar because recycling infrastructure already exists at scale. That makes “fully recyclable” a claim we can stand behind—not because paper is inherently better than plastic, but because it can be independently verified by regulators, recyclers, and customers.
For a brand carrying meaningful US packaging volume, the useful first move isn't a full redesign. It's an honest audit, run against the same standard the regulators are using:
- Map exposure by format and by state — not just California. A format that's fine in one state's rules can be expensive in another's, and national volume means every state's rules apply simultaneously.
- Separate claims from infrastructure. Any "recyclable" or "compostable" language currently on a label should be checked against real access and processing data before it's a claim a lawyer has to defend under SB 343-style truth-in-labeling laws.
- Start with the highest-volume, most standardized formats. Transport bags and mailers tend to be a single design decision that touches the largest share of SKUs — that's where a format change moves the most exposure at once.
- Design toward the direction, not just today's cheapest option. Fee schedules are still being finalized in several states; a format that's marginally cheaper under today's draft rates isn't a win if it sits in the tier every program is pricing higher over time.
- Treat it as a design brief, not only a compliance filing. The formats that reduce fee exposure are frequently the same ones that improve unboxing experience and shelf presence — the compliance case and the brand case tend to point the same way.
For brands shipping meaningful volume into the US, packaging is becoming a recurring business variable as more EPR programs come online. The opportunity is not simply to manage compliance, but to make a packaging decision that works for regulation, cost, customer experience and brand credibility.
Vela™ helps brands transition from plastic to recyclable paper packaging designed for existing recycling infrastructure and global supply chains. Explore why brands choose Vela™, discover our circular by design approach, or learn how to get started with Vela™.
- California SB 54, Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act — CalRecycle program page
- CalRecycle, SB 54 Covered Material Category List — calrecycle.ca.gov
- CalRecycle, SB 343 Accurate Recycling Labels — calrecycle.ca.gov
- California's labeling law resets the market for recyclability claims” — Waste Dive
- Circular Action Alliance, California program — circularactionalliance.org
- Circular Action Alliance, Colorado program — circularactionalliance.org
- Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act — oregon.gov
- Washington State Department of Ecology, Recycling Reform Act — ecology.wa.gov
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging — pca.state.mn.us
- Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging — maine.gov
- Maryland Department of the Environment, Producer Responsibility — mde.maryland.gov
Téléchargez l'étude complète et découvrez comment le choix des matériaux influence la perception, l'engagement et la valeur de la marque.
Un membre de notre équipe examinera votre demande et
vous répondra dans les 24 heures.
Nous sommes impatients de vous aider à concrétiser l'emballage circulaire.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Parlons de la façon dont Vela™ peut soutenir vos objectifs.
Remplissez le formulaire et l'un de nos représentants commerciaux de votre région vous contactera dans les 72 heures.
Un membre de notre équipe examinera votre demande et vous répondra dans les 24 heures. Nous sommes impatients de vous aider à concrétiser l'emballage circulaire.
