Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, imposes a legal obligation on companies to help finance the disposal of the packaging they use. The difficult part for manufacturers is rarely understanding the principle. It is working out who is responsible, where the obligation arises, what packaging data is needed, and how that information eventually becomes an EPR report. Those questions are becoming increasingly relevant to U.S. (and non-U.S.) food manufacturers as packaging EPR programs move from legislation into implementation. Programs in California, Oregon, and Colorado are already turning these concepts into practical compliance work, moving beyond the European examples that previously served as the only reference point for U.S. businesses.
Identifying the Responsible Producer
A common mistake is assuming that “producer” simply means the company that manufactured the food or owns the brand. In EPR legislation, producer is a legal role. Who holds that role can depend on the market, the companies involved in the transaction, and how the packaged product reaches the customer. If that packaged fruit is sold to a supermarket established in another EU country, responsibility in the destination market can instead sit with the supermarket. If the original company sells directly across the border to the end user, the result can be different again.
The same basic exercise is now necessary in the U.S. because producer definitions and exemptions differ between state programs. In California, for instance, SB 54 covers single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware. However, CalRecycle has specific guidance covering exclusions for certain food and agricultural commodity packaging. A food manufacturer must check whether its packaging is covered and whether it is the responsible producer before moving forward. This distinction matters because one product may travel through several sales models simultaneously, such as supplying domestic retailers, exporting through distributors, or operating an online store.
Before calculating packaging weight or fees, a business should map the route to market. It must identify the legal entity making the sale, the destination market, the type of customer, and whether another business will place the packaged product on that market before it reaches the end user. Getting this step wrong makes the subsequent compliance efforts irrelevant.
Treating Obligations Market by Market
Once the responsible producer has been identified, the next step is determining where that obligation exists. This requires treating the obligation separately from the physical product. The same jar, carton, or pouch may be sold unchanged in several countries, but entering another national market can create a new EPR compliance process. The same principle applies state by state in the U.S.
California illustrates this complexity. Under SB 54, the Circular Action Alliance serves as the state’s approved producer responsibility organization. An obligated producer generally needs to participate in the PRO plan, pursue an approved individual compliance route, or qualify for an applicable exemption. CalRecycle operates the PEPRS system for registration, data submission, and compliance tracking, while CAA handles much of the process on behalf of participating producers. Oregon has a fully operational program that requires covered producers to register with CAA, report products supplied into the state, and pay fees, unless an exemption applies.
For a food company selling nationally, the practical lesson is that a single “U.S. compliant” status is not useful. California, Oregon, and Colorado may involve the same PRO (Circular Action Alliance), but that doesn’t mean the same rules apply. Covered materials, exemptions, and deadlines still vary state by state. This does not mean a business must build a separate system for every state.
The better approach is to separate information that remains constant from rules that change. The packaging specification can often stay centralized, while the legal analysis, registration, and reporting categories may need to be determined market by market. A simple market map recording the responsible company, registration details, and required local setup can be extremely useful for this purpose.
Building Packaging Data That Can Actually Be Reported
Food packaging makes EPR data particularly important because one finished product can contain several distinct packaging components. A relatively simple food product might use a plastic tray, sealing film, paper sleeve, and label. Several units may then be packed into a corrugated case, wrapped for transport, and placed on a pallet. An EPR system may not treat all of those components in the same way. The company therefore needs more than the total weight of the finished pack.
A useful packaging dataset should be able to identify the individual packaging components, their materials and weights, the product or pack configuration they belong to, and the period during which that specification was used. Sales data can then determine how many units entered each relevant market. This is especially important because packaging specifications do not remain static. A film may be lightweighted, a cap may change material, or a supplier can replace a tray. If packaging data is collected only when the annual EPR report is due, those changes can be surprisingly difficult to reconstruct.
A better process is to update the underlying packaging record when the packaging itself changes. That turns EPR reporting into an output of packaging and sales data rather than a separate annual data-collection project. The company can therefore maintain a consistent record of which packaging specification was in use during any given reporting period. This approach avoids the need to reconstruct a year of packaging changes retrospectively and ensures that the fee calculation is based on the correct materials and weights.
Completing the Local Compliance Setup
Only after the producer, markets, and packaging are understood does it make sense to complete the administrative setup. Depending on the jurisdiction, this can involve registering as a producer, participating in a producer responsibility organization, appointing an authorized representative where required, and establishing who will submit the recurring packaging reports. The source notes that Europe provides a useful warning against assuming that one process works everywhere, but the emerging U.S. programs now make the same point.
Report First, Then Understand What Drives the Fee
EPR fees receive a great deal of attention because they are the most visible cost of the system. However, comparing fees too early can be misleading. A published price per kilogram only becomes useful once a company knows that it applies to the correct market, producer, packaging category, and scheme. Fee structures can also become considerably more detailed than a simple price for “plastic,” “paper,” or “glass.” European systems increasingly distinguish packaging according to characteristics such as recyclability, material combinations, or other design features.
