Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is becoming a key strategy in the United States for managing packaging and plastic waste more sustainably. EPR shifts the responsibility for waste management from taxpayers and local governments to the producers of the packaging materials themselves. This article explores how various U.S. states are adopting or resisting extended producer responsibility laws for packaging and plastic, what different models are being used, what is working, and the challenges that remain.
What is Extended Producer Responsibility?
Extended Producer Responsibility is a policy approach that holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, especially the stage after consumers use them. In practice, this means companies that manufacture or sell packaged goods are responsible for funding or managing the recycling or disposal of that packaging.
While EPR has been used for other products like electronics and batteries for years, its application to packaging and plastic waste is relatively new. This shift aims to reduce plastic pollution and relieve financial pressure on local governments that traditionally fund waste management systems through taxpayer money.
Why Adopt EPR for Packaging and Plastic?
Packaging and plastic waste represent a significant portion of the country’s trash. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, containers and packaging make up more than a quarter of the municipal solid waste generated in the U.S. Local recycling systems are facing serious financial challenges, especially after China stopped accepting U.S. recyclables in 2018. This caused many cities to struggle with managing their recyclable waste efficiently.
EPR helps by requiring the companies that produce the packaging to contribute to the cost of recycling and waste management. This creates incentives for them to design packaging that is easier to recycle, use less material, and invest in recycling infrastructure.
States Leading the EPR Movement
As of 2025, four states have passed laws establishing EPR for packaging: Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California. Several other states are actively considering similar legislation.
Maine – The First State to Act
Maine passed the first packaging EPR law in 2021. The law requires producers to pay fees based on the amount and recyclability of the packaging they put on the market. The fees go to a stewardship organization selected by the state, which then funds local recycling programs and waste reduction efforts. This approach allows municipalities to keep control over their recycling systems while shifting the financial burden to producers.
While Maine’s program offers clear accountability and local control, the fee structure is complex, and some industry groups have pushed back against the law, citing concerns over cost transparency and administrative burdens.
Oregon’s Shared Responsibility Model
Oregon’s EPR law, also passed in 2021, uses a shared responsibility approach. It creates a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) that manages the recycling system. Costs and management responsibilities are divided among producers, local governments, and waste haulers. The law also includes funding for education and recycling infrastructure improvements.
This collaborative approach encourages stakeholder cooperation but faces challenges around coordinating roles and responsibilities, which can create confusion during implementation.
Colorado’s Efficient System Design
In 2022, Colorado passed legislation that established a single nonprofit PRO responsible for managing the entire statewide recycling system. Producers fund 100 percent of the system costs, making the program simple and clear in terms of financial accountability.
The model aims to streamline the process and reduce overhead, but some worry that having one PRO could limit competition and innovation. The transition for local governments accustomed to managing their own systems could also be difficult.
California’s Ambitious Approach
California’s Senate Bill 54, passed in 2022, is the most ambitious packaging EPR law in the country. It requires all packaging to be recyclable or compostable by 2032 and mandates a 25 percent reduction in single-use plastics. The law also establishes a PRO to ensure producers comply with these goals.
California’s approach sets aggressive targets and involves broad stakeholder engagement, but it also imposes a heavy administrative burden. The legislation has faced resistance from industries heavily reliant on plastics, which worry about the cost and feasibility of these goals.
States Considering or Resisting EPR
Besides the four states with laws on the books, several others are in various stages of consideration or debate.
States like New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Washington have proposed or studied EPR legislation but have yet to pass comprehensive laws. Illinois and Massachusetts also have active advocacy groups pushing for EPR, but political hurdles remain.
In contrast, some states, particularly in the South and Midwest, are resisting EPR efforts. Texas and Florida, for example, have seen significant lobbying from industry groups and political resistance to EPR legislation. These states often cite concerns about increased costs for consumers and businesses as reasons to delay or reject EPR policies.
Different EPR Models Used in the U.S.
There are three main models for EPR systems being tested or implemented in the U.S.:
Full Producer Responsibility
This model places the entire cost and management of the recycling system on producers. Colorado is an example, where producers fund 100 percent of the program’s expenses. This approach creates clear financial accountability but requires strong regulation to prevent monopolistic control and ensure fair management.
Shared Responsibility
Used by Oregon, this model divides responsibility among producers, local governments, and waste operators. It allows for cooperation but can be complicated to administer, with the potential for unclear roles and responsibilities.
State-Controlled with Producer Funding
In Maine’s model, producers pay fees into a state-managed fund, and the state decides how to allocate the money to municipalities and recycling programs. This approach maintains local control but can limit flexibility and innovation from producers.
Early Signs of Success
Though packaging EPR programs are new in the U.S., some early positive outcomes have emerged:
- Increased investments in recycling infrastructure and technology.
- Encouragement for producers to innovate and redesign packaging to avoid higher fees.
- Improved transparency around the real costs of recycling.
- Greater public awareness about the importance of packaging waste reduction.
Ongoing Challenges
Despite promising signs, several challenges remain:
- Industry pushback remains strong, with concerns about increased costs and regulatory complexity.
- Program complexity makes coordination between producers, governments, and waste managers difficult.
- Equity concerns arise around ensuring low-income and rural communities benefit from EPR programs, especially where recycling access is limited.
- Enforcement and monitoring need to be strong to prevent loopholes or delayed compliance.
- Lack of consistency between states can create confusion and increase costs for national brands.
Is Federal Action on the Horizon?
There is growing discussion about the need for a federal EPR law to create consistent standards across all states. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act has been introduced multiple times but has not yet passed. A federal law could simplify compliance for producers, provide clear rules, and support nationwide investments in recycling infrastructure.
However, political divisions and lobbying efforts will make passing such legislation difficult in the near term.
What Consumers Can Do
Consumers still have an important role to play, regardless of legislative progress. They can:
- Support EPR legislation by contacting their elected representatives.
- Choose products with less or recyclable packaging.
- Hold brands accountable by supporting companies that prioritize sustainable packaging.
Conclusion
Extended Producer Responsibility is an emerging but powerful approach to tackling the U.S.’s packaging and plastic waste problems. Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California have laid important groundwork with their laws, each taking a slightly different approach. These early examples provide valuable lessons for other states considering EPR.
While challenges like industry resistance and program complexity remain, EPR shifts financial responsibility to the companies that profit from packaging, encouraging them to reduce waste and invest in recycling. With careful planning, strong oversight, and public support, EPR can help build a more sustainable future for packaging and plastic waste management in the U.S.
Do Follow USA Glory On Instagram
Read Next – The Environmental Justice Gap: Who Really Pays the Price?
