As states like California, Oregon, Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota roll out ambitious new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies for packaging, stakeholders are busy grappling with the major hurdles to achieving the bold targets now mandated. The goal of EPR is to hold producers and distributors accountable for the proper end-of-life management of their packaging waste. In simple terms, it’s a carrot-and-stick approach that, if implemented effectively, incentivizes producers to eliminate unnecessary packaging and use more recyclable or compostable materials.
The Recycling Reset = Learning Lessons from the Past
One of the main goals of packaging EPR is to catalyze what many are calling “Recycling 2.0”—a broad effort to fix the critical flaws in our current recycling system. In the introductory post of this series, we outlined the Five Pillars of Successful EPR—core lessons learned that must guide The Recycling Reset if it is to succeed.
In our first deep dive, we explored the first pillar: Begin with the End Markets in Mind. The key takeaway was simple but crucial: just because something can be recycled doesn’t mean it will be recycled. Recycling is only economically viable if stable, robust end markets exist for the recovered materials. Without strong markets, all the time, energy, and resources that go into recycling are effectively wasted.
Why Upgrading How We Manage Waste Streams is Essential
The second pillar of effective EPR focuses on upgrading how we manage waste streams. Rather than attempting to “upgrade” the waste itself, we must upgrade the systems that manage waste—specifically by identifying and utilizing valuable waste as inputs into new material cycles.
Manufacturers that reuse recycled materials depend on a “clean” feedstock: a uniform supply of just the materials they need. Viable end markets cannot exist without highly efficient sorting mechanisms that deliver this clean feedstock. Achieving this requires better systems for sorting and separating materials at every stage—collection, processing, and end-of-life management.
The Great Plastics Problem
The crucial task of separating waste—whether recyclable, compostable, or otherwise—starts with each of us. Yet rampant greenwashing, unclear labeling, and wildly inconsistent municipal recycling rules have created massive confusion about what belongs where. For the average consumer, using a waste bin has become a pop quiz in chemistry—and many of us are failing.
Workers at Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and composting centers deal with the consequences. Aluminum, steel, cardboard, and paper are generally straightforward to process—unless they’re badly contaminated. Plastics, however, present far more complex challenges due to their material diversity.
Rigid plastics labeled 1, 2, and 5—think beverage bottles, milk jugs, detergent containers, and yogurt tubs—are widely recyclable and have strong end markets. But plastics numbered 3, 4, 6, and 7 often have little or no viable market, making them much harder to sort and resell. Flexible plastics like shopping bags, produce bags, snack wrappers, and pouches are even more problematic. They clog sorting machines and are often mistakenly tossed into curbside bins, even though they don’t belong there.
Misleading recycling symbols exacerbate the problem. Many consumers wrongly assume that the “chasing arrows” symbol means a package is recyclable. In reality, the number inside the arrows (a Resin Identification Code, or RIC) merely indicates the type of plastic, not whether it can be recycled in a given community. Compostable packaging faces similar confusion, as many consumers conflate “biodegradable” with “compostable”—when in reality, they are not the same.
Contamination of recycling and composting streams with inappropriate materials damages equipment, increases costs, and even downgrades the quality of outputs like certified organic compost, which must meet strict standards for organic farming.
California’s SB 343 and Its Impact
California’s SB 343, the “Truth in Labeling for Recyclable Materials” law, tackles this confusion head-on. Under SB 343, only materials collected by recycling programs covering at least 60% of the state’s population can be labeled as recyclable with the chasing arrows symbol. If a material meets the threshold, all MRFs must accept it.
If the material does not meet this threshold then the use of the chasing arrows symbol is prohibited.
This law should reduce consumer confusion and decrease contamination at MRFs. However, it also creates a new challenge: innovators working to bring new recyclable materials to market may be trapped in a catch-22. Without wide access and consumer-friendly labeling, their materials may struggle to reach the critical mass needed for acceptance. Regulators must address this if they want to foster innovation alongside standardization.
The Innovation Challenge in Food Packaging
Food packaging presents a particularly tough nut to crack. Today’s snack bags and food wrappers aren’t just plastic—they’re multilayer marvels engineered to preserve freshness, prevent spoilage, and meet strict food safety standards. Disassembling these complex structures for recycling is almost impossible, even if the packaging is collected properly.
Food-contact packaging also faces the problem of contamination: leftover food residues can ruin entire batches of recyclables. For this reason, some innovators are pushing to make food-contact packaging compostable instead.
The idea is elegant: food scraps and compostable packaging could go into the same bin, solving two problems at once. But getting there is complicated. Compostable packaging still has to meet the same food safety requirements—like oxygen and moisture barriers, temperature tolerance, and non-toxicity—as traditional packaging. And composting facilities themselves are heavily regulated, particularly when it comes to materials accepted under the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP).
Compostability and Regulatory Hurdles
California’s AB 1201 law tightened the rules for what can be labeled as compostable. Products must be certified and approved as allowable agricultural organic inputs under NOP standards. Otherwise, they cannot be marketed as “compostable” or “home compostable.”
One major concern: certain compostable plastics may contain additives or coatings that could leach into compost and, eventually, food crops. Because of these risks, compostable packaging is classified as “synthetic” under current organic standards, making it a non-allowable input for organic farming.
AB 1201 included a provision asking CalRecycle to explore the feasibility of separating compliant from non-compliant compostables. But as of mid-2024, CalRecycle concluded that this dual-sorting system is not currently feasible at scale, largely because most composting facilities lack the necessary equipment and processes.
This outcome significantly complicates the development of compostable food packaging. Without clear pathways to compliance, it remains uncertain how brands will meet SB 54’s requirement for 65% recycling or composting rates by 2032, especially for food packaging.
Encouraging Innovation for a Sustainable Future
Those working toward a more sustainable, circular packaging economy face a fundamental choice: should they design based on today’s limited infrastructure—or on the vision of a better, more regenerative future?
We believe innovation must be encouraged, not constrained. Systems and infrastructure must evolve alongside material science breakthroughs. Packaging designers, composters, regulators, and brands all need room to experiment, pilot new ideas, and adapt as new capabilities emerge.
Sorting and processing challenges won’t disappear overnight. But if we’re serious about creating a circular economy, we must invest in better ways to manage waste streams, develop materials designed for real-world end-of-life scenarios, and rethink how we educate consumers.
California’s new California Agency for Recycling and Producer Responsibility (CARPR) will play a critical role in leading these changes. Recognizing these challenges is the first step toward building a future-ready recycling and composting system.
Call to Action
Want to help shape a future where packaging supports a circular economy? Follow along as we continue tracking the policies, innovations, and ideas that will define the next generation of recycling and composting. Better yet—get involved, ask questions, and challenge assumptions. Together, we can create the systems we need for the future we want.