Packaging legislation is no longer something food businesses can keep at arm’s length.
California’s SB 54 has already passed its first reporting deadline, including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) data reporting, the UK’s EPR scheme has expanded to include smaller producers, and the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) comes into force this August - not to mention the many other EPR schemes globally.
Taken together, the impact of this global direction is starting to change how packaging decisions are made day-to-day. They’re also exposing where businesses don’t yet have the data or systems in place to respond.
In California, expanded polystyrene (EPS) foodservice ware has effectively been ruled out since January 2025, after failing to meet required recycling thresholds. For businesses that relied on it, the adjustment has been immediate. For others, the risk is more gradual but no less real.
Looking ahead, SB 54 requires plastic recycling rates of 30% by 2028 and 65% by 2032. By that same year, every piece of single-use plastic packaging must be recyclable or compostable. EPR fee obligations follow from January 2027. Non-compliance carries daily penalties (of up to $50,000) and the prospect of certain materials banned from sale entirely.
One detail that’s often missed is that SB 54 applies to any business selling into California, regardless of where it is based. This includes out-of-state and international sellers. A physical presence is not required to be in scope.
From October 2026, California’s SB 343 adds another dimension. Any recyclability claims that can’t be evidenced open the door to legal challenges as the Truth in Labeling legislation comes into force. For food businesses, that shifts packaging into a legal as well as operational concern.
Without accurate data, you cannot comply
EPR compliance depends on being able to report accurately - not just at headline level, but across every constituent part of a piece of food packaging. That includes formats, substrates, weights and measures, additives, and every additional element including labels, closures, adhesives, inks and coatings.
Under SB 54, producers are expected to reduce plastic packaging by 25% against a 2023 baseline. This assumes a level of historical data that many businesses don’t have in a usable form.
For any food retailer or manufacturer managing thousands of SKUs, this becomes extremely difficult. Reporting under SB 54 spans more than 90 Covered Material Categories defined by CalRecycle. Manual processes and approximations can only go so far, particularly as fee structures become more detailed and scrutiny increases.
In many cases, this isn’t just a data issue, it’s an operational one - requiring coordination across procurement, packaging, compliance and finance teams that haven’t traditionally worked together.
What we’re seeing in practice is that even businesses that prepared early are finding gaps in their data, or inconsistencies that make reporting harder than expected. The issue isn’t whether data exists, but whether it is accurate, consistent and audit ready.
At the same time, ownership of packaging is shifting. What has traditionally sat with sustainability or brand teams is moving into compliance, finance, and legal, because the consequences pose much greater risk from both a brand and commercial perspective than non-compliance.
The shift is starting to change how decisions are made. Rather than reviewing packaging after the fact, some food businesses are building compliance into development, looking at packaging holistically including recyclability, recycled content, reporting requirements, EPR fees and cost of goods all at the same time. While that approach still isn’t the norm, it’s where things are heading.
For many businesses, the challenge is twofold. The first is understanding the range of regulations, especially for global food businesses or those selling in multiple jurisdictions, while the second is having access to 100% accurate and real-time data.
In practice, EPR is less a compliance burden and more a blueprint for better packaging. The data built for today’s reporting requirements becomes the foundation for smarter packaging decisions that create tangible benefits for brands, consumers, and the environment.
The commercial dimension
Shifts in consumer attitudes are adding yet another layer to an already complex area. A growing proportion of shoppers are already choosing not to buy products because of unsustainable packaging. As younger, more environmentally conscious consumers come of age as buyers, that trend will only intensify.
Put simply, the data needed for compliance is the same data that underpins credible sustainability claims. Businesses that have it in place will be better equipped as regulation tightens and be less exposed to rising fees or eroding consumer trust.
As consumer education increases and as they actively switch brands due to packaging concerns, claims on pack are no longer just a compliance requirement, they are part of brand equity.
EPR isn’t a single, once-and-done project to complete. It’s an ongoing business imperative that touches multiple parts of the organization. The immediate priority is getting to a point where packaging data is complete and usable. Without that, everything else - reporting, cost control, packaging change and consumer communications - becomes more difficult.
From there, the focus can shift to using that data more effectively, both to manage compliance and to inform better packaging decisions over time.
Over the coming months, the food brands, retailers and manufacturers that get that foundation in place early will find it easier to adapt as requirements evolve. Those that fall behind are likely to find the process more disruptive, and more expensive, than they expect.
