Extended producer responsibility continues to dominate packaging policy discussions. While major changes to policy trends might be hard to spot year to year, industry groups see opportunities to take some lessons from the earliest examples of EPR implementation in the U.S. to further inform legislative discussions this year.
Last year saw the adoption of EPR bills in Maryland and Washington, each of which called for producers to ultimately reimburse 90% of recycling costs, following a similar approach in Minnesota the prior year.
In 2026, much attention on state EPR activity centers on the Northeast, including ongoing discussions in New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York.
With states in different legislative phases, “we've seen some introductions of EPR legislation, and we've seen reintroductions of continued EPR legislation,” said Alchemy Graham, policy director at the EPR Leadership Forum. The organization represents major CPGs, retailers and packaging manufacturers, many of which also make up producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance’s board.
“A needs assessment has been a really big part of those conversations, especially in the states that are a little more hesitant on moving forward on EPR,” said Graham. Illinois, Rhode Island and Washington all have needs assessments due this year based on previous bills.
Making sure that a needs assessment is “done well and that it's done right” is a major focus, Graham said. It doesn’t matter as much whether that’s done in the form of a standalone study bill or as part of a broader EPR bill, as long as core tenets are included.
“There needs to be certain authorities that are given to collect that data. There needs to be ample time to conduct the needs assessment. There needs to be ample funding to conduct the needs assessment,” Graham said.
When considering previous states’ EPR efforts, including a bit of “stop and start” rulemaking in California, some of the biggest lessons to carry forward so far are around “timing and sequencing,” Graham said. “I think that those are going to be really big parts of the conversation this year.” This includes having a strong statutory framework prior to moving into rulemaking.
Other critical tenets include ensuring ample lead time from when a program is established to when it kicks in for a PRO to set up and operate, according to the Consumer Brands Association.
“We understand that everybody wants to get to the final policy goal and objective, which is reducing single-use plastic waste, and then also incorporating it back into a circular economy,” said John Hewitt, senior vice president of state affairs at CBA. “But good programs take time to implement, and I think that's the biggest lesson that we have learned through the EPR process to date. So that is encouraging, because it's going to make each subsequent EPR process a little bit better.”
Concerns about the extent of EPR’s eventual affordability impacts to consumers, which has long drawn different viewpoints in EPR debates, are perhaps more top of mind than ever.
“What we're seeing in New York this year, a little bit more frequently than we did in ‘25, is lawmakers and other groups asking that question: How much is it going to cost? What's going to be the impact to the consumer, short term versus long term? And are we headed down the right path to ensure that we achieve our circularity goals, and at the same time, minimizing the impact to consumers along the way?” Hewitt said.
For the Can Manufacturers Institute, pairing EPR with deposit return systems remains a critical piece of the EPR puzzle. As such, Washington, where EPR passed last year, and Rhode Island, where efforts on a joint EPR-DRS bill last year were overtaken by a needs assessment bill, are CMI’s top two focus states to advance deposit return systems in 2026.
Familiar concerns remain among retailers or the waste industry around participation and loss of material revenue, but legislation addresses those, said CMI President Scott Breen, who is most optimistic about Washington. “This session is the session to do it,” he said. And elsewhere, while complementary EPR and DRS systems are common around the world, Rhode Island could be unique if it were to enact them at the same time, he said.
As multiple states move to get their already greenlit EPR programs up and running, organizations’ focus on EPR becomes more split between legislation and implementation issues, such as ecomodulation.
In California for example, where rules for SB 54’s sweeping EPR and source reduction program are still being revised, “we are, as well as our members, spending a lot of time investing in that process and making sure that those are headed in the right direction,” said Hewitt.
At the federal level, while no recycling bills cleared Congress last year, bipartisan bills remain that could fund more recycling investments, such as the Steward Act and the Circle Act. Additionally, just ahead of the new year, legislation was introduced in the House to bring some federal harmonization to labeling, as the Federal Trade Commission remains silent on potential Green Guides updates and businesses anticipate an October start date for California’s own SB 343 truth in labeling law.
The Pack Act, backed by Ameripen and supported by the Flexible Packaging Association, American Beverage Association, Biodegradable Products Institute and others, calls for implementing requirements for recyclable, compostable and reusable claims for consumer product packaging. Packaging that doesn’t meet certain parameters would be prohibited from bearing commonly used resin identification codes surrounded by chasing arrows.
Notably, the Pack Act would have the potential to preempt state laws such as California’s. Introduced by Texas Republican Randy Weber, the bill gained bipartisan status in January thanks to California Democrat Adam Gray signing on as a co-sponsor. California state senator and SB 343 author Ben Allen came out against the Pack Act this month. “Rolling back our protections would lead to increased residential waste rates and more pollution,” Allen said in a press release.
SB 343 is “a great example of a state action that could literally stop the influx of commerce at the state border,” Ameripen Policy Director Danielle Waterfield said in December. “Now, will Congress feel enough threat to act upon that? That's a big question.”
Outside of Congress, groups are also closely watching for developments at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, where the Human Foods Program recently disclosed its 2026 priority deliverables. These include advancing front-of-pack nutrition labels, reforming the Generally Recognized as Safe designation for substances added to food, and researching microplastics in food.
On labels, this includes actions to “summarize the public comments and prepare options for leadership to make decisions on the content of a final regulation,” FDA said. On GRAS, a proposed rule is expected soon to require stricter oversight, with potential implications for food-contact materials used in packaging.
