How to Achieve EPR-Forward Packaging, Part 2

Reduce wisely First is another important step in instituting the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach. Brands that explore the role of primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging in the value chain and address how it can be minimized will achieve lower EPR fees and a reduced environmental impact. Reducing the amount of packaging has the most beneficial effect on the environment. However, package reduction may increase the environmental impact of the food system, so reduction must be done wisely. Source reduction has been a continual process to reduce the cost of all packaging materials. California’s 1991 law resulted in a major weight reduction in rigid plastic containers (State of California 1991). Other packaging materials and formats have been light weighted, as well. For example, corrugated cases contain liner boards that are much lower in basis weight.

A primary concern is the plastic-specific percent reduction, elimination, and reuse element targets within EPR legislation, such as California SB54 targets. Notably, California SB54 legislation is driving a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032. However, since flexible packaging is already minimalistic, often with direct product contact, as with vacuum packaging for meat and cheese, reduction targets may not be achievable. “While this reduction may be viable for some rigid packaging,” explains Alison Keane, president and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association, “flexible packaging is the hardest to reduce since it already has the highest packaging-to-product ratio.” 

Interestingly, this required reduction does not apply to paperboard, corrugate, metal, or glass. Thus, if this reduction is not achievable, there may be a switch from plastic to a higher greenhouse gas footprint than minimalistic plastic film. Since optimizing all packaging materials means lower packaging EPR fees, reevaluating all current packaging is warranted to reduce all EPR fees.

Including the value chain and how and when packaging is used and transported is critical to minimizing fees and lowering the environmental impact of packaging. For example, retailers’ need for labor reduction and solutions to manual shelf stocking may warrant using pre-stocked shelf sets that can be rolled out onto the retail floor three times a day. Further, sets can be stored in modified atmosphere chambers in minimal packaging to reduce the need for individual modified atmosphere packaging of produce. Rethinking packaging will allow EPR-forward packaging to have a lower environmental impact and EPR fees.

In addition to dramatic changes, design optimization and the material science of combining materials to allow the benefit of one material property, such as an oxygen barrier, to be employed will further reduce the amount of packaging. For example, paperboard cartons can contain gaps and maintain strength and sufficient space for product information when an inner plastic film liner is used to maintain product integrity and shelf life with an oxygen barrier. Also, film can be cavitated, and bottles can be filled with micro air pockets or starch to increase yield and reduce the amount of plastic packaging while maintaining barrier properties.

Julia Willsie, senior sales executive, Mill Rock Packaging Partners, echoes the need for innovation. “Now is the time to start testing and modeling various solutions. If your existing packaging contains plastics and labels, there may be ways to cut process steps and save money,” she advises, noting that products can be packaged in a printed box or tray, allowing for customer information and marketing without needing labels. “Multiple options can be tested to assure product quality while modifying the packaging to be more cost-effective and ecological. This is a time for creativity and change in the industry to design new eco-friendly, cost-effective packaging for the shelves.”

Invest in Recyclability

Recyclable packaging will also lower EPR fees. Technically, all packaging can be recycled. Paper can be recycled up to seven times and still be used on paper-based packaging. Glass and metal are considered infinitely recyclable, and plastic can be recycled indefinitely when taken to the monomer level. However, definitions of plastic recycling are not considered in a manner that allows the most or highest amount of material to be recycled for reuse. Keane says, “While other programs across the globe accept waste to energy and advance recycling for harder to recycle and lack of end-use market packaging, like flexibles, many states in the United States ban these end-of-life technologies altogether.”

The Association of Plastics Recyclers certifies packaging as recyclable and provides a guide to ensure plastic packaging is recyclable. This includes base resin color, dimensions, closures, labels, adhesives, inks, barrier layers, additives, and attachments. For example, in a market test of eight Tesco stores, embossed and laser-engraved labels replaced labels on Sprite recycled PET bottles. The variety of plastic packaging means that not all plastic is the same. In general, plastic with less than 2% of other plastic is recycled with the dominant plastic and compatibilizers, such as polypropylene (PP)/ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) compatibilizer, which enables plastics to be recycled together. While the trend toward one material within a package structure to facilitate recycling is advancing rapidly, often more material is needed to achieve the same barrier or mechanical properties. Thus, the environmental impact of the packaging increases even when the recycling rate is included.

It is critical to note that flexible packaging is unique since it is the only material not collected in 98% of curbside recycling collection systems. This is mainly because flexible packaging was not as prevalent when these systems were implemented in the 1970s. However, there are uncertainties regarding fees and processes associated with flexible packaging. “In California, high fees on flexible packaging may exist because we need to invest in the necessary infrastructure to get it recycled or composted,” explains Keane, “but that may be offset by lower charges because flexible packaging has a more efficient product-to-package ratio than other packaging. These conflicting goals and outcomes should be addressed by the California Product Stewardship Organization through its program plan.”

Keane adds that for flexibles, full circularity is possible, but she thinks it is going to take dedicated investment in modernizing the domestic recycling system. “We are cautiously optimistic that the EPR programs implemented in these states over the next several years will accomplish that,” she says. “For example, in Oregon, life cycle criteria will be considered, which FPA believes is a more thoughtful approach to these sometimes-conflicting priorities.” Keane notes that the use of bioderived PP, polyethylene (PE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which have a much lower environmental impact than their fossil-derived counterparts, is not addressed in SB54, even though they are also recyclable.

Critically, according to EPR legislation, packaging will not be considered recyclable if it contains certain chemicals, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other chemicals of concern above threshold levels. Thus, eliminating chemicals of concern from packaging will fuel a more circular economy since packaging can be safely recycled for more applications. There are numerous applications of chemicals used for food packaging, from coatings to adhesives and inks. Information on chemicals of concern such as bisphenol A (BPA), PFAS, and toluene from packaging suppliers is essential to develop more recyclable packaging. The packaging industry is making great strides in this effort (Sand 2024). The paperboard industry, for example, requires certification of repulpability to be approved as recyclable. This certification process has removed many chemicals of concern and enabled efficient recycling of paperboard. Peelable liners can make fiber-based containers water-, grease-, and/or oil resistant and recycle-ready.

Assess Reusable Packaging Applicability

Reusing food packaging requires major changes in the value chain and consumer behavior and has promise in three areas. The first area, and the one with the most promise, is in returnable tertiary packaging, such as shipping cases. These returnable containers are already used in the food industry to package produce and bakery products and hold promise for use in other categories. A second area with potential involves consumer-related assistance, such as the bulk dispensing of foods into refillable containers brought into the store by consumers. Another example is offering minimalistic, flexible packaged products in-store that consumers can transfer into reusable containers at home. The third area is reusable high-barrier secondary packaging that reduces the required barrier, providing the opportunity for minimalistic primary packaging. This may allow the primary packaging to achieve reduced EPR fees. However, a thorough life cycle impact assessment is needed to ensure that the environmental impact of returnable packaging is lower than nonreturnable packaging.

Comply with Labeling Guides

Two significant actions will alter package labels considerably. Aligning with various EPR bills, California’s SB343 law prohibits use of the chasing arrows or any other indicator of recyclability on products and packaging unless certain criteria are met. Often referred to by industry stakeholders as the “Truth in Recycling” or “Truth in Labeling” law, SB343 goes into effect in the fall of 2025. SB343 relates to the use of “chasing arrows” and other statements such as “Earth-friendly,” “ecologically sound,” “environmentally safe,” and “environmental choice,” indicating recyclability as being deceptive or misleading unless the product or packaging is collected and sorted by recycling programs in jurisdictions encompassing at least 60% of the state’s population. Interestingly, store drop-off recycling labeling will not comply with SB343 because its material characterization study deemed film and flexibles unrecyclable.

In addition, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission Green Guides are slated to be updated in 2024. The Green Guides update promises that there will be a harmonized approach to what is recyclable and that all recycling technologies, particularly for plastics, will be deemed acceptable.ft