July 31st, 2025
As momentum for extended producer responsibility (EPR) accelerates across the United States, a familiar narrative has re-emerged—one that resists change by casting it as a threat.
Recent articles in Plastics News and The WestView News portray EPR as a regulatory overreach that punishes businesses, raises consumer prices, and kills innovation. But the facts tell a different story. Around the world, EPR programs are delivering tangible results—driving up recycling rates, reducing municipal costs, and spurring smarter product and packaging design. Far from a radical concept, EPR is a proven policy tool that aligns economic and environmental responsibility.
In the current system, local governments and taxpayers carry the cost of managing waste from products they didn’t create. EPR changes that by shifting financial and operational responsibility upstream—to the companies that design, manufacture, and sell those products. That’s not punishment. That’s accountability.
One of the most persistent myths is that EPR leads to higher consumer prices. But peer-reviewed research presented at PSI’s 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum—backed by Columbia University analysis—found no consistent link between EPR fees and retail price increases. In competitive markets, producers often absorb or offset costs through better design, lighter materials, and improved logistics. The result is a more efficient system—not a more expensive one.
“In 35 years of EPR in Europe, we’ve never seen direct, automatic price increases for consumers,” said Joachim Quoden, Managing Director of EXPRA. The real-world data is clear: EPR does not burden consumers—it balances the system.
Gary Cohen of the Tennessee Waste to Jobs Coalition put it bluntly: “Approximately 7% of the retail cost goes to packaging. EPR fees are minimal—a fraction of a cent per product.” And with major retailers laser-focused on price competitiveness, those minimal costs are rarely, if ever, passed along.
Critics also suggest that EPR creates bureaucratic red tape. In reality, EPR streamlines fragmented, underfunded local programs into coordinated, producer-funded stewardship organizations. These Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) operate with clear goals and transparency, freeing municipalities to focus on other essential services.
And when it comes to innovation, the evidence is clear: EPR doesn’t stifle it—it drives it. When producers are responsible for what happens to their products at end-of-life, they’re incentivized to design for recyclability, invest in reuse, and rethink material choices.
“EPR helps fix the system we already have,” said Dylan de Thomas of The Recycling Partnership. “It aligns incentives, stabilizes costs, and delivers better outcomes without burdening consumers.”
Of course, EPR programs must be well-designed and thoughtfully implemented. Stakeholder engagement, performance metrics, and system accountability are key to long-term success. But rejecting EPR outright ignores the data—and the direction the world is moving.
“Producers adapt, retailers absorb, and the system benefits,” concluded Matt Reynolds, Editor at PMMI Media Group and moderator of the session.
We can no longer afford to subsidize wasteful product design with public funds. EPR is not about punishing producers—it’s about creating a level playing field, where those who generate waste also help manage it responsibly.
It’s time to move beyond the rhetoric and embrace the reality: EPR works. It’s not just the future of waste management—it’s the future of shared responsibility, smarter systems, and a more sustainable economy.