Seven states have passed extended producer responsibility legislation for packaging, with more on the way. That’s a genuine policy win, but the bulk of attention and implementation work has followed traditional recyclable materials including plastic films, rigid containers, and fiber packaging. Compostable packaging and reuse pathways are receiving a fraction of the focus.
What’s getting less airtime are the mechanisms for executing on compostable packaging commitments and the unintended consequences that could follow. Emily Coven, California Executive Director of the Circular Action Alliance, points to harmonized definitions and consistent labeling across jurisdictions to make these programs workable. California may prove to be the exception given how far along its framework already is, but emerging states still have a real opportunity to align on standards before those decisions get locked in.
Question 1: What happens to EPR’s recyclability goals when food waste depackaging scales?
EPR was designed with zero waste principles in mind, and the policies taking shape are largely built around traditional recyclables. Running alongside that evolution, largely in a separate conversation, is a rapid scaling of commercial food waste diversion that’s reshaping how packaged materials move through the waste stream. Depackaging, the mechanical separation of food from its packaging through applied force, shearing, or pressure through a screen, is increasingly positioned as a primary solution for diverting packaged food from landfill. ReFED’s most recent analysis shows more food waste is being directed to anaerobic digestion and depackaging than ever before.
The problem is that depackaging renders packaging largely unrecyclable. When a pallet of chip bags, beverage containers, or packaged produce goes into a depackager, food residue contaminates everything, and the resulting material, including mixed plastics, soiled cardboard, and multilayer formats, typically goes to landfill. If depackaging continues on its current trajectory, EPR’s recyclability targets and the organics diversion goals of states with food waste mandates may end up working at cross purposes, a tension that hasn’t surfaced adequately in the policy conversation yet.
Question 2: Will eco-modulation fees alone be enough to move composters toward acceptance?
Eco-modulation, the practice of adjusting producer fees based on the environmental attributes of a material, is one of the most promising tools EPR programs have for steering packaging toward better end-of-life outcomes. But for formats with no viable recycling end market, including multilayer chip bags, compostable films, and single-use cutlery, setting the right fee is only part of the equation.
What’s less clear is whether anyone is asking composters directly what it would take, operationally and financially, for them to accept those materials at scale. Fee structures designed without that input risk optimizing for the wrong variables, and the harder question isn’t just what fee to set but what combination of incentives, infrastructure investment, and operational support would make broad acceptance of the most difficult compostable formats a realistic ask.
Question 3: Are the measurement protocols precise enough to tell us what’s actually working?
Colorado is expected to become the first state to reimburse composters for accepting EPR-covered compostable packaging, with funding anticipated as early as this fall. Unlike MRFs, which operate within an established per-ton reimbursement structure, composters are navigating a grant-based funding landscape where the primary hurdle is operational willingness to accept these materials.
Colorado’s current approach leans heavily on self-reported volumes and total facility throughput, but a facility accepting covered materials from one commercial customer and not others will look very different on the ground than on a reporting form. Whether those measurement protocols are precise enough to capture that distinction will shape how other states design their own programs, and whether EPR funding genuinely shifts composter behavior or simply rewards the path of least resistance.
