Beyond Compliance: Navigating EPR’s Packaging Trade-Offs

Seven states are rolling out Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, and California’s next EPR reporting deadline is 1 August 2026. It’s safe to say producers are fully locked into EPR now and actively taking stock of how these important laws will impact their bottom lines and everyday operations.  

In this interview, Managing Director of ESG Strategy and Sales, Neil Mendenhall, is talking with Urvi Talaty, who serves as a life cycle practitioner with SCS Consulting Services. Guided by Urvi’s insights and expertise, we’re zooming in on EPR-adjacent considerations such as source reduction, recyclability, and food safety to better understand how overall life-cycle environmental performance can point toward different — and more strategic — packaging choices.  

Neil Mendenhall (NM): Let’s begin at a high level by thinking through the technical intersections of EPR compliance with EPR-adjacent considerations. How should producers navigate situations where source reduction, recyclability, food safety, and overall life cycle environmental performance point toward different packaging choices?

Urvi Talaty (UT): The intersection between EPR compliance, source reduction planning, food waste prevention, infrastructure challenges, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) goals is something producers are having to think a lot about at the moment. Producers are tracking to  several regulations, along with voluntary commitments that might have competing or at least differing objectives.  

In California, for example, producers are thinking about their individual source reduction plans, due on August 1, which call for reducing the weight of plastic packaging being put out in the state over the next few years. In other US states with active EPR regulations, producers are trying to reduce their fee exposure by switching to formats and materials with lower fees. So the challenge is to make sure that any packaging decisions that are being made actually comply with the regulations — but then also don't have unintended trade-offs once those decisions are made.  

For example, we hear from a lot of producers about how they make moves to eliminate or change a label on a product only to contend with having less space to print regulatory information on it. Another example would be producers getting rid of a packaging component that is key to preserving food safety or making sure that it survives transport. The removal of this packaging component means you might have to do more testing to figure out what else works with scope reduction targets.  

And then of course, if a producer shifts to a material that is more recyclable but happens to be heavier, then they might be causing more transportation emissions over the course of products being shipped out to storefronts and then being purchased by consumers. It's entirely possible that packaging changes that help reduce EPR related fees might increase a producer’s shipping costs and scope 3 emissions, for example. Understanding all the implications of these kinds of changes prior to committing to alternative packaging solutions is important.  

Another situation involves increasing post-consumer recycled content (PCR) in plastic packaging, which is a pathway for source reduction available to California producers, but this may lead to food safety tradeoffs if PCR performance isn’t considered. Degradation in packaging due to subpar performance could cause barrier failure, leading to pathogen growth or shorter shelf life. Careful sorting and testing of PCR feedstock is also critical to ensure heavy metals, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and other contaminants aren’t going into packaging that will have food contact.

Stated very plainly, increasing PCR content is good, but compromising food safety is bad. The solution then, under the auspices of EPR regulations and food safety compliance, includes focusing on secondary and tertiary packaging that is not directly in contact with the food. Still, it’s at this point in the EPR conversation that we can really see how a single decision may have multiple considerations and how life cycle impacts come into play. Luckily, these seemingly invisible impacts can be excavated and quantified through a proper life cycle assessment (LCA).  

Just to recap this topic a bit here — producers may deal with tradeoffs between EPR requirements and other sustainability, food safety, and packaging considerations that are often unexpected. That can look like tensions between voluntary versus statutory targets, source reduction decisions that may increase scope 3 emissions, or trying to balance food safety and PCR content in food packaging.  

These are just a few of the types of trade-offs and complexities we see producers dealing with as all these EPR regulations come online in the US. The operational and reporting challenges associated with EPR legislation really underscore the importance of working with a team of EPR consultants who are in close communication with food safety and packaging experts as well as life cycle assessment specialists.  

NM: Does removing packaging always reduce environmental impact?

UT: Not necessarily. Eliminating packaging components may introduce unintended consequences, such as increased product spoilage, higher weight elsewhere in the system, or shifts to less recyclable formats.

That’s why LCA is essential. LCAs help producers evaluate full-system impacts, including product loss or damage (which can outweigh packaging reductions), changes in transportation emissions, and end-of-life outcomes (e.g., recyclability vs. landfill).

NM: What are the five reduction pathways that producers can use for source reduction in California?

UT: The five reduction pathways producers can pursue under EPR are as follows:

1. Reuse/Refill: Shifting from single-use to reusable or refillable packaging formats
2. Elimination: Eliminating a non-essential plastic component or entire packaging layer altogether
3. Material Substitution: Shifting from plastic to a recyclable/compostable non-plastic material
4. Right-sizing: Reducing packaging volume through methods like light-weighting, concentrating, or shifting to bulk formats
5. Recycled Content: Increasing the use of PCR content

NM: Can a package have a lower EPR fee but a worse environmental footprint? Or, stated a little bit differently: How do we balance source reduction with EPR costs and compliance risk?

UT: Counterintuitive as this might seem, it’s entirely possible to have a lower EPR fee and a higher environmental footprint, and this is one of the most important concepts producers need to understand. EPR fees and LCA results are not always linked and prioritize different things. EPR fees primarily reflect how a material performs within the waste management system (recyclability, sortability, collection costs). LCAs measure environmental impacts across the entire lifecycle of a product or packaging, including raw material extraction, manufacturing and use, and disposal. A package can score well on one metric and poorly on the other.  

For example, a flexible plastic pouch is lightweight and uses very little material, but it is difficult to recycle and hence receives higher EPR fees. If that is replaced with a rigid plastic container, it is more recyclable and receives lower EPR fees, but the package may need more material and increase transportation emissions due to the increased weight. Likewise, PCR content may unlock EPR incentives but require verification and supply chain tracking.

So then the deeper question producers should ask is which packaging decision minimizes total environmental impact, while still meeting food safety, performance, and EPR compliance requirements? That is where performing an LCA becomes essential. LCA can really help producers understand the unforeseen vulnerabilities throughout the entire life cycle of their packaging.  

NM: How can producers reduce packaging without compromising food safety while maintaining compliance with EPR regulations?

UT: This is a very difficult question to answer, which is why it's helpful when a producer is working with both environmental and food safety experts on the same team. That way these experts can be talking to each other directly, considering different packaging scenarios from a life cycle perspective, and making decisions that can benefit both sides without actually running up against each other.  

So, for example, reuse and refill is one of the pathways available for source reduction in California; however, there can be concerns related to contamination when you think about reusable or returnable packaging. And this is something where — if it’s for a food product — you would need a food safety expert to make sure that the standards and processes in place are being met and that the reuse of packaging does not lead to food safety concerns.  

The other consideration has to do with using more PCR content, which can be one way to achieve source reduction targets — but again, mechanically recycled PCR content generally may still have some contaminants from the previous life cycle of the product. And so this is something that needs to be thought about when using mechanically recycled post-consumer content in food contact packaging. Producers must think about the considerations related to food safety and contaminants in that PCR, making this aspect of EPR one of the most critical tensions producers face today.  

Solving for EPR and food safety requirements simultaneously can take various shapes. For example, producers can take a number of preventative actions such as assessing contamination risk in reuse or refill systems; validating material performance when introducing PCR or lighter-weight formats; and ensuring compliance with food contact and labeling requirements. Again, these are complex operations that really benefit from having a dedicated, diverse team of experts who can tap into each of these respective realms in a truly holistic and effective way.  

NM: What tradeoffs should we expect when shifting materials or formats?

UT: Material shifts, such as moving from plastic to fiber, are often seen as straightforward sustainability wins, but they come with complex tradeoffs.  

So one of the biggest trade-offs, of course, is environmental — as in, thinking about how source reduction efforts might lead to unintended environmental impacts somewhere else in the system.  

Another trade-off is considering labeling requirements in marketing and advertising, because packaging is often used as a vehicle for marketing and advertising. This can include needing to be aware of brand recognizability and consumer perception. If a label is removed to support source reduction, it’s important to evaluate the associated trade-offs, particularly with respect to advertising claims and the inclusion of required regulatory information on the food package. Producers need to be prepared to face this type of challenge in their operations.  

There’s also recyclability to take into account. If you shift to a different material, it's possible that it could be less recyclable. Recyclability in reference to infrastructure readiness is also essential, meaning the use of a new material may not be helpful if it cannot be processed or if the infrastructure to process it is not available in the places where the product will be purchased, used, and disposed of by consumers. This trade-off touches on supply chain feasibility and costs, too.

And then there’s the ever-present specter of food safety. Producers must ensure that any packaging decisions are still sensitive to and inclusive of food safety mandates designed to preserve the safety of the food itself. Packaging attributes, such as barrier properties, seal integrity, durability, compatibility with processing conditions, etc. directly impact food safety. This reinforces the importance of using the appropriate materials to package and transport food products. Of course, these materials need to be compliant with food safety and EPR regulations.

NM: How should producers approach source reduction when data are incomplete or uncertain?

UT: Data gaps, particularly for tertiary packaging, PCR tracking, and full supply chain visibility are major barriers to effective source reduction planning. Already producers are finding that data gaps are really an inevitability when it comes to EPR, especially since this is an emerging topic and often data systems weren’t designed with EPR in mind.  

In other words, the laws may be asking for data that have never been tracked or reported before. Meeting these new data requirements, then, could mean an overhaul of your data infrastructure to make sure that you’re actually tracking the data that you need for future EPR reporting.  

Tracking those data would be the first step to filling those data gaps, but this is something that takes a lot of time. And so the thing to keep in mind here is that EPR reporting is an iterative process. The best way to move forward is to track any data gaps, be very transparent about it in your reporting, and then be as descriptive as possible about any assumptions that you used to fill those data gaps. This allows the regulator or Circular Action Alliance (CAA) to understand what the current state of data is.

Source reduction plans require producers to act now. The expectation is to make defensible assumptions (e.g., reuse rates, infrastructure availability), clearly document these assumptions in planning, and treat source reduction as an iterative process.

NM: If you could offer one piece of advice to producers just beginning to navigate EPR compliance, tracking, reporting and fees, what would it be?

UT: My one piece of advice to producers navigating EPR right now would be to work with a reputable, trusted team of diverse experts who work in each of the areas touched by EPR regulations — food safety, packaging, recyclability, life cycle assessment, sustainability reporting — these are just a few of the domains EPR both relies upon and influences. SCS Consulting Services is just such a team of diverse experts with decades of deep experience in each of these domains.

Have more questions about EPR? Not sure how to get started or when? SCS Consulting Services’ teams of EPR experts are here to help. Please feel free to get in touch today: [email protected].