Circular Economy

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.

By Kristina Benoist, Marketing & Communications Director

March 26, 2025

California’s Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) was designed to be a groundbreaking shift in how plastic waste is managed, requiring producers—not taxpayers—to take responsibility for packaging waste. However, less than two years after its enactment in 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered a revision, citing rising compliance costs, delays in implementation, and growing resistance from both industry and environmental groups.

While this decision has generated debate, it does not signal a reversal of producer responsibility in California or across the country. Instead, California is refining SB 54—making targeted adjustments to improve the feasibility of implementation while maintaining the law’s core objectives.

ADJUSTMENTS, NOT A ROLLBACK

When SB 54 was signed into law in 2022, it introduced some of the most progressive plastic reduction and recycling targets in the country, including:

A 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032.

A requirement that 65% of covered materials be recycled and certified through an approved process by 2032.

A $5 billion producer-funded mitigation fund over a 10-year period, specifically $500 million annually from 2027 to 2037, to address the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and support affected communities.

As implementation began, producers raised financial and operational feasibility concerns. In response, Governor Newsom declined to approve the rules as drafted, acknowledging industry concerns and directing regulatory agencies to refine them before they could proceed to the California Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling for formal adoption.

Rather than a rollback, California is expected to make targeted revisions that ease the transition for producers while preserving the law’s key goals.

The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review process, which is standard for regulatory changes, could take up to a year. However, to accelerate certain adjustments, an “urgency bill” could be introduced in the California Senate, allowing a limited number of critical revisions to be fast-tracked.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EPR IN OTHER STATES

While California’s experience with SB 54 is being closely watched, this revision process is unlikely to slow momentum for EPR nationwide. States like Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, and Maine are continuing to quickly move forward with their own packaging EPR programs, each tailored to their specific regulatory and economic landscapes.

WHAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED

California Senator Ben Allen—the lead sponsor of SB 54—recently outlined proposed adjustments and clarifications in a letter to Jeff Fielkow, CEO of Circular Action Alliance (CAA). These proposals were part of a negotiation effort to encourage CAA’s support for the draft regulations. While not changes to the law, the suggestions emphasized collaboration, regulatory flexibility, and timeline adjustments to support smoother implementation. CAA ultimately declined to endorse the proposals.

Key points included:
1. Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) Plan Adjustments

The deadline for the initial PRO plan submission is proposed to be moved to July 1, 2026, providing producers more time to develop their compliance strategies.

2. Financial and Reporting Adjustments

Temporary Simplified Eco-Modulation Fees – A simplified fee structure will be used until the end of 2029 to ease the transition for producers.

3. Annual Reports & Fee Schedules:

Annual Budget and Fee Schedules – Producers must submit budget and fee schedules annually by October 1, 2026, separate from the full program report.

4. Compliance and Data Collection

Source Reduction Data – Producers must submit baseline source reduction data before the PRO plan submission deadline of July 1, 2026. CalRecycle will have the authority to update this baseline before 2027.

5. De Minimis Exemption

CalRecycle will clarify its current rules for small producers (de minimis criteria) through emergency regulations before the July 1, 2026 deadline for PRO plan submission.

6. Regulatory & Technological Considerations

Chemical Recycling Review: Any company using chemical recycling technologies will need to fund and commission peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate compliance.

Reusable Packaging Standards: Durability standards for reusable food serviceware will be refined.

Life Sciences Exemption: Secondary and tertiary packaging used in life sciences (e.g., medical and pharmaceutical industries) are proposed to be explicitly exempted.

7. Reporting Flexibility
Annual, not Monthly, Reporting: To reduce administrative burden, producers will submit data annually rather than in monthly increments.

WHAT’S NEXT FOR SB 54?

With the Governor signaling the need for refinements to SB 54, the next steps focus on how these adjustments will be implemented. The process will move forward through multiple avenues, each operating at a different pace:

Legislative Action – Lawmakers will introduce a bill to formally adopt revisions, incorporating stakeholder input to ensure the changes balance feasibility with the law’s original intent.

Regulatory Adjustments – CalRecycle and the advisory board will refine program rules, clarify compliance requirements, and establish updated guidelines for producers through the regulatory process.

Urgency Bill Option – If certain revisions require immediate implementation, an urgency bill could be introduced in the California Senate to fast-track specific changes, allowing them to take effect sooner than the standard legislative timeline.

Administrative Review – The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) will oversee regulatory refinements. While this review process can take up to a year, select revisions may be expedited depending on legislative and agency priorities.

The combination of these pathways ensures that SB 54 moves forward with adjustments that improve feasibility while keeping California’s producer responsibility framework intact.

LOOKING AHEAD

Extended deadlines and regulatory flexibility ensure that producers and the PRO can better prepare for compliance. Clarity on financial obligations helps industries transition smoothly into the eco-modulation fee structure. More specific guidelines on exemptions, reporting, and technology provide clearer expectations for producers and regulators. The continued dialogue and adjustments reinforce the state’s commitment to a workable and effective EPR system under SB 54.

California’s adjustments to SB 54 will shape how the state fine-tunes its approach to producer responsibility, but its unique economic and regulatory environment means that its experience will likely not dictate how other states implement their programs. These adjustments intend to make SB 54 more easily implementable while still advancing California’s ambitious waste reduction and recycling goals.

PSI diligently monitors and tracks all legislative developments, stakeholder responses and the evolution of these laws, not only in California, but for all 50 states.

Stay connected with PSI for updates on California’s plastics EPR law, industry reactions, and the future of producer responsibility nationwide. Want to learn how this legislation—and similar efforts in other states—could impact your business? Reach out to Darla Arians at darla.arians@productstewardship.us to explore how we can work together.

September 5, 2024

This week, the California Legislature passed significant EPR bills to establish several new programs and strengthen existing ones. Now awaiting Governor Newsom’s signature, the bills include first-in-the-nation EPR programs for textiles and marine flares, the second EPR law for EV batteries in the country, and meaningful amendments to California’s carpet and paint stewardship programs. These bills incorporate best practices learned in the past 10 years and put on display the blossoming of the EPR movement in the U.S. They also exemplify the important state-based advocacy of the California Product Stewardship Council, Californians Against Waste, and the National Stewardship Action Council. The Governor has until September 30 to sign the bills.

Textiles (SB 707)
California is poised to be the first state to enact an EPR law for textiles. The law would require producers of clothing, footwear, and household textiles to participate in and fund a statewide reuse and recycling program for their products. The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) sponsored the landmark legislation, which seeks to reduce the environmental impact of the fashion industry by increasing the reuse and recycling of textiles, which are major contributors to landfill waste and pollution. The bill garnered broad support from environmental organizations, municipal waste managers, and key players in the fashion and textile industries. California will join the European Union, which already has textiles recycling mandates.

EV Batteries (SB 615)
This EPR law would be the second in the nation (after New Jersey) to require suppliers of electric vehicle traction batteries to ensure the collection and management of those batteries at end-of-life. The bill establishes a “battery management hierarchy” that prioritizes reuse, repair, and remanufacturing and requires that each battery have a unique identifier so that it can be tracked for responsible management. As the largest U.S. market for electric vehicles, California’s law could “fuel” the growth of EV battery recycling in the U.S., providing essential materials for renewable energy manufacturing in the U.S. Californians Against Waste led bill advocacy with support from recycler Redwood Materials and others.

Marine Flares (SB1066) 
This bill, if enacted, would be another first-in-the-nation EPR law. It would require any manufacturer (currently just Orion) of marine flares – pyrotechnic devices used to signal distress in boating – to establish and fund a program for collection and proper disposal. Additionally, the bill bans perchlorate from marine flares sold to California consumers. The chemical is increasingly found in groundwater, surface water, and soil and is known to damage human thyroid functions that are essential to mental function, metabolism, and fetal development. This bill was championed by the National Stewardship Action Council and Zero Waste Sonoma.

Carpet Amendment (AB 863)
This amendment to California’s carpet stewardship program – the latest of three to improve the original carpet industry program – adds several elements to boost recycling, including a requirement for 5% carpet-to-carpet recycled content by 2028; mandatory sorting at approved collection sites by 2029, including proper storage and transportation of recyclable carpet to a recycler; standardized backstamping of carpet to support more efficient material sorting; and components of carpets published on the manufacturer website for better recycling. The amendment also includes nonvoting representation on the CARE board for a retailer, a circular economy NGO, and labor; funding for workforce development; audit transparency; and higher enforcement penalties. The original bill, which has since been amended, pushed even further, calling for a needs assessment to determine if the scope of the program should include other flooring such as luxury vinyl tile, sheet vinyl, and linoleum, which compete with carpet in the marketplace. This provision was intended to address a key carpet industry concern about leveling the playing field for all flooring. The original bill also contained higher targets for recycling and recycled content. This amendment was championed by the National Stewardship Action Council.

Paint Amendment (SB 1143)
PaintCare, the California paint stewardship program, added aerosol paints in 2023 to the original program established in 2007 by PSI, the American Coatings Association, and numerous government and private sector stakeholders. If enacted, this amendment would further expand the scope of the program to include furniture paint, marine paint, and other related products. Since adding aerosols to the California program, PaintCare has expressed interest in adding additional paint products to its programs in the other 12 jurisdictions with laws – yet another sign of the growing influence of EPR on materials management. This amendment, as well as the 2023 amendment, were championed by the National Stewardship Action Council.

Gas Cylinders (SB 1280)
Although not EPR, this CPSC-sponsored bill would prohibit the sale of non-reusable or non-refillable propane cylinders. The bill would effectually require that all 1lb cylinders be reusable, just as 20lb barbeque tanks currently are.

by the team at PaintCare, a PSI Partner

For more than a decade, PaintCare has operated manufacturer-led paint stewardship programs in states across the country that make paint recycling convenient. PaintCare is the nonprofit organization created by the paint industry through the American Coatings Association (ACA) to manage the end of life of architectural paint products in states that pass paint stewardship laws. The organization currently operates programs in California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. A new program in Illinois is currently being planned.

PaintCare organizes year-round drop-off sites conveniently located throughout these states, where households and businesses can bring leftover house paints, stains, and varnishes for recycling. These drop-off sites serve a community need for easier recycling opportunities and keep paint out of the waste stream. The program currently provides a network of over 2,400 drop-off sites in the states where it operates.

While convenient drop-off sites serve the public day-to-day, PaintCare also alleviates the burden of recycling larger quantities of paint – something that particularly impacts painting professionals. The program offers large volume pickups for anyone with 100 gallons or more of eligible paint. Since PaintCare first launched in 2010, it has arranged nearly 10,000 of these free pickups, making it easy for painting professionals to responsibly dispose of leftover paint, and keep it out of the waste stream.

Overall, PaintCare has collected more than 70 million gallons of paint to date.

“Households and businesses greatly benefit from the PaintCare program,” says Nichole Dorr, Vice President of State Programs at PaintCare. “It’s a common challenge for most homeowners, renters, and painters to have leftover paint with no easy solution in sight. PaintCare offers a convenient way to responsibly manage the end of life of your paint.”

What happens to the paint once it’s dropped off at a drop-off site or hauled away during a large volume pickup? PaintCare works with waste transporters to collect the paint and manage it according to a hierarchy of “highest, best use,” meaning as much as possible is given away as-is, recycled, or put to some other beneficial use. PaintCare recently piloted a series of free paint giveaway events that provided thousands of gallons of leftover paint to communities in California and is considering expanding these to other areas.

The statewide paint stewardship programs are funded by a fee (referred to as the PaintCare fee) which is applied to the purchase price of architectural paint sold in each state. The fee amount is based on container size and varies from one program state to another. It covers all aspects of the program: including paint collection, transportation, processing, and public education. This small fee means that those who purchase and use paint each help ensure a system to manage postconsumer paint.

Learning how PaintCare operates allows for a more robust understanding of how the legislative process informs these state program successes. ACA’s government affairs team expertly navigate the political landscape in potential PaintCare states to form recommendations on possible program states as they forge relationships with lobbyists, stakeholders, and others with involvement in the legislative process.

“The goal is to ensure each paint stewardship law is tailored to the needs of each state, yet consistent at its core,” says Jeremy Jones, Director of Extended Producer Responsibility at ACA. “Lawmakers and governors play a decisive role in shaping bills that become laws. However, we work closely with the wide gamut of stakeholders who can convey from their unique vantage point what becoming the next PaintCare state would mean to them. Everyone has a stake in a well-executed PaintCare program and that’s why it’s so important to build quality relationships up front.”

PaintCare continues to build their network of drop-off sites and works closely with many industry organizations to increase awareness of paint recycling opportunities in program states. For more information about paint recycling, visit PaintCare at www.paintcare.org. To get involved in the legislative effort in the next PaintCare program, email Jeremy Jones at jjones@paint.org.

Earlier this month, over 200 globally recognized experts gathered in Portland, Oregon for PSI’s 12th U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. Speakers presented throughout two days of intensive sessions on a wide range of topics covering the most important trends in producer responsibility policy and programs. While all of the sessions were insightful and high quality, the following notable quotes were made during a few of the top sessions.

Extending Responsibility: Eco-Modulated Fees and Responsible End Markets

“Eco-modulation must go beyond incentives, it is about making sure the fee structure reflects the real costs of managing the packaging material and its impact in the value chain.”
Genevieve Dionne, Éco Enterprise Quebec

“Eco-modulation works, period. But it could be gentler, and it could be less complicated for the producers and other market players.”
Gauravi Saini, Reclay StewardEdge

Perspectives on Plastic Recycling – From Mechanical to Chemical

“Mechanical and chemical recycling need to be complementary solutions. The complexities of plastic waste require both to deliver a truly circular economy”
Maranda Demuth, Eastman

“We need to have a robust conversation on whether chemical recycling is worth its environmental impacts.”
Celeste Meiffren-Swango, Environment Oregon

The PRO’s Role in the Circular Economy

“Having a not-for-profit producer-governed organization that supports producers in meeting their EPR commitments ensures efficient and effective recycling systems are in place where plastics and other packaging materials are collected, recycled, and returned back to producers for use as recycled content.”
Allen Langdon, Circular Materials

“We are working with local governments and recyclers to determine how to effectively support recycling systems.”
Shane Buckingham, Circular Action Alliance

“The hallmark of successful systems is a focus on the goals and the desired outcomes.”
Leslie Huska, GreenDot North America

Packaging EPR Implementation in the United States

“The Oregon law prioritizes sustainability above circularity. There is potential for these ideas to be in conflict and the Oregon law aims to achieve broader sustainability objectives. If we pursue circularity in a narrow way and just focus on recycling and composting, there might be some unintended outcomes.”
David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

“In California, we are focused on the reduction of plastic pollution and overall production of packaging materials in the state. The California law requires that 100% of packaging sold into the state of California is either recyclable or compostable, by 2032.”
Rachel Machi Wagoner, CalRecycle

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Throughout the rich and diverse discussions at the conference, the following important issues were highlighted as they are becoming increasingly important in the field of EPR.

Policy Harmonization: All stakeholders expressed the importance of identifying common elements of all EPR bills and laws. Policy harmonization is not only crucial for increasing the efficiency of existing and future programs, but also for ensuring alignment across jurisdictions, reducing consumer confusion, and enabling effective program comparison.
Measuring Success: Congruent with the need for policy harmonization is the need to define how the success of a program or policy is measured. It is essential to identify what needs to be measured, ensure that data collection is accurate and consistent, and provide all stakeholders with relevant information.
Producer Presence: As the field of EPR continues to advance, it will be necessary to directly involve producers, along with associations, in the conversation. Without representation from key producers, a valuable perspective on the field is lost. The interest of individual producers and their associations are essential to advancing effective EPR policy.

WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT THE CONFERENCE?

We are shifting into a new phase of the EPR movement with rapid success and the need for engaged stakeholders and a highly knowledgeable community. The PSI Forum will continue to be a space for those eager to learn and contribute as we lead this movement forward. Here are some thoughts from 2023 PSI Forum attendees on the importance of event:

“PSI did it again, assembling the world’s experts on EPR (those actually engaged in making it happen) and presenting two days of rich, productive conversations about the current state of affairs in the U.S., Canada and Europe and where things are headed, on a wide variety of products as well as packaging. Kudos to PSI for being able to bring such diverse parties to the conference in a series of stimulating panels. PSI continues to be THE place to go for expertise, ability to bridge government, business and advocacy groups, and the many connections, contacts and synergies possible.”
Dave Galvin, former PSI board president

“PSI’s conference enables State Environmental Staff, PROs, Recyclers and NGOs to collaborate on EPR. With the growth of EPR, this conference is becoming essential to those involved with environmental policy and execution.”
David Bender, CEO Circular Polymers by Ascend

“Excellent forum about all aspects around EPR. Competent speakers, lively discussions about the hot topics, engaged participants, perfect networking. The place to go in the US!”
Joachim Quoden, Managing Director EXPRA

“The 2023 US Product Stewardship Forum provided a wonderful opportunity to connect and have meaningful and in-depth conversations with others working to find solutions to how we can move the solid waste industry from a linear (extract, make, use, dispose) system to a more circular economy. Learning from each other and working together, we can take actions that have long-term positive results for our customers and the environment!”
Susan Fife-Ferris, Seattle Public Utilities, Washington

“Fun, productive, and a truly unique meeting of the minds from across the globe!”
Maya Buelow, Lane County Waste Management, Oregon

“Scott and the PSI team put together an excellent event. The structure was just right to allow attendees to choose which sessions they wanted to attend without having to choose from overlapping sessions. Looking forward to the next Forum two years from now!”
Doug Kobold, California Product Stewardship Council

CONTINUE THIS WORK WITH US

PSI will continue to lead these conversations with other experts through our webinar series this fall. Our webinars will cover a range of pressing issues and we look forward to your participation. For more information, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder of the Product Stewardship Institute, debuted his recently published book, Perspectives on Product Stewardship: Navigating an extended producer responsibility path to a circular economy, at the 2023 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. This book is a must-read for all EPR professionals. Click here to purchase your copy! If you are a PSI Member or Partner, contact info@productstewardship.us for 30% discount.

PHOTOS FROM THE FORUM:

by Jim Asali, President and CEO of the Pack Green Coalition, www.packgreen.org

In an era dominated by ominous news of the impacts of climate change—most recently evidenced by devastating fires in Maui—and a legitimate plastic pollution crisis that appears to have no end, Pack Green is here to offer a bit of encouragement. Sustainable packaging innovation is on the rise and offers smart alternatives to single-use plastics that far too often clog our landfills and pervade our lands and waterways. In 2023, we have happily taken note of environmentally-friendly packaging advancement across three major sectors: consumer packaged goods, produce, and beverages. Here, we highlight promising developments in each of these spaces:

CPG

American toy manufacturer Mattel—the creator of Barbie—has publicly pledged to (1) achieve 100% recycled, recyclable, or bio-based plastic materials in its products and packaging by 2030, (2) maintain 95% recycled or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified content in the paper and wood fiber used in its products and packaging, and (3) reduce plastic packaging by 25% per product by 2030. In addition to its packaging and materials pledges, the company has also started the Mattel Playback scheme, which seeks to keep the toys and materials in circulation longer through recycling. The program currently accepts Barbie, Fisher-Price, Matchbox and MEGA toys for recycling, and is available in the US, Canada, France, Germany and the UK.

LEGO—the world’s leading toy manufacturer—announced in its annual results that it has begun to transition to paper-based bags in LEGO boxes, putting it on track to make all of its packaging from more sustainable sources by the end of 2025. In its factories, it has continued to invest in reducing waste, operating more energy efficiently, and expanding production and use of solar energy.

As part of its commitment to sustainability, consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble has pledged by 2030 to reduce its use of virgin petroleum plastic in its packaging by 50%. As part of this process P&G has invested in technology to improve the efficacy of post-consumer recycled content to more closely match that of virgin materials.

Produce

Paper companies have long embraced the inherent advantages of fiber-based packaging over plastic, even as the latter has sought to make inroads into grocery and produce protection. Two of these makers of sustainable paper packaging solutions are Georgia-based WestRock and Graphic Packaging International. WestRock creates packaging for several industries, including food, beverage, healthcare, retail, beauty, and more. Its EverGrow® Collection includes punnets, tills, totes, and trays produced specifically for growers, distributors, and retail produce brands. EverGrow® is made from renewable paperboard and allows for curbside recyclability when emptied and flattened, offering an alternative for hard-to-recycle plastics.

The same goes for the ProducePack™ line of fresh produce packaging from Graphic Packaging International. ProducePack™ is a line of paper-based fruit packaging that offers a variety of sustainable, shelf-ready solutions for fresh fruit and vegetables. In addition, the ProducePack™ Punnet includes a wide range of applications to deliver an effective alternative to traditional plastic/acetate produce packaging for retailers and producers.

Beverage Containers

Holland, Michigan-based Boxed Water™ is emerging as a leader in the transition away from plastic beverage bottles. Currently, there are roughly 38 billion single-use plastic bottles landing in U.S. landfills and waterways each year, a figure that takes into account the current recycling rate of single use plastic water bottles of around 25%. Boxed Water has sought to address this using simple formula: the least amount of plastic and the most renewable materials, the better the package. Its box is FSC-certified and 92% plant-based, made from paperboard and paper waste. The FSC- and ISCC-certified water box cap is made of pine tree waste, harvested responsibly from Nordic forests. The result is a low carbon-impact product that is also 100% reusable and recyclable.

In the 2010s a consortium of packaging, bottling and beverage manufacturers—including the Carlsberg Group—worked together to create an innovative paper bottle. The result was PABOCO (Paper Bottling Company), which has developed bio-based bottle prototypes in Europe and has invited additional partners to join in its efforts, including Coca-Cola, L’Oreal, Pernod Ricard, The Absolut Company, and Procter & Gamble.

In yet another encouraging development, American food and beverage company PepsiCo has unveiled its plans to replace plastic rings on beverage multipacks across the US and Canada with recyclable paper-based designs. In 2022, Coors Light announced that it will globally shift away from plastic rings to cardboard-wrap, a move the company said will save 1.7 million pounds of plastic waste annually by 2025.

Conclusion

While the problem of plastic pollution is multi-faceted and may seem overwhelming, we know that the solution will come down to the basics of reducing virgin output, improving a fractured and anemic recycling system, and increasing re-use as we move away from our throwaway culture. Only through a concerted effort to combine the foregoing dynamics will we be able to achieve circularity and ameliorate the adverse impacts environmental, health, and aesthetic impacts of our drastic overuse of plastic packaging. The advent of the products and innovations described in this post gives us reason to believe we are beginning to make progress.

by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing & Communications Director

Next week, world leaders will gather for the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Although PSI was invited to attend and contributed to discussions leading up to the event, we were unable to make the trip.

INC-2 will take place from May 29 to June 2 at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris. This meeting will be followed by INC-3 in Kenya in November and INC-4 in Canada in April 2024. At each meeting, EPR will be front and center.

Recently, the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network shared analysis of proposals submitted by UN member states, which showed that 60% referenced EPR. OPLN indicated that the number was probably higher because those that referenced “product stewardship” rather than “EPR” were not included in the evaluation.

Critical to the conversation is the Peak Plastics report published by Economist Impact and The Nippon Foundation earlier this year as part of their Back to Blue initiative. This report showed that on their own, many of the policies being considered — including Single Use Plastic Product (SUPP) bans, EPR for packaging, and an aggressive carbon tax on virgin plastic — are insufficient to affect the projected doubling of plastic consumption by 2050. However, when implemented together they could significantly reduce consumption: “EPR is…vital, as it will improve waste collection and increase recycling rates, which will curtail plastic leakage into the environment.” This is in keeping with PSI’s perspective on EPR for packaging, which is most effective when implemented alongside additional measures such as reuse strategies.

The genesis of these discussions began at the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2) in 2022, when UNEA Resolution 5/14 was adopted. Its goal is to develop an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution by 2024. Without significant intervention, the UN projects a tripling of the amount of plastic waste entering the marine environment — from as much as 14 million tons per year in 2016 to as much as 37 million tons in 2040.

by Scott Cassel, CEO and Founder

Although we haven’t seen a new packaging EPR law enacted yet, eight states introduced legislation in 2023 – and Maryland just became the fifth state to move on it. On May 10, Governor Wes Moore signed legislation to establish a government funded needs assessment to be developed by a consultant that will determine the need for new recycling collection and processing infrastructure, along with the costs. The law also requires the establishment of a producer responsibility organization to coordinate producers and a separate advisory council, established by the Maryland Department of Environment that is tasked with reporting its findings and recommendations to the Governor by December 1, 2024 for consideration in 2025.

There have been four laws passed over the past two years – in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California – and Maryland’s new law sets the state up to join them in 2024. Previously this year, Maryland’s state legislature considered a packaging EPR bill, SB 0222, which had more elements of a solid EPR bill. It would have required producers to reimburse local governments up to 50% for collection, transportation, and processing of packaging materials – including plastic, paper, glass, and metals. Originally introduced in 2021 as HB36 and reintroduced in 2022, the goal of the legislation was to reduce material and product waste by 25% or more by 2035. This bill did not pass, but SB 222, the EPR packaging study bill, did.

EPR is snowballing, partially in part due to a growing awareness of the circular economy, which has the potential to help turn around environmental crises like climate change and pollution: Today, the global manufacture and use of consumer products generate 20% of greenhouse gas emissions annually but the circular economy is projected to reduce 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, EPR is the “only proven and likely way to provide funding that is dedicated, ongoing, and sufficient” to develop a circular economy.

In keeping with circular economy principles, packaging EPR legislation, which will now be studied in Maryland, aims to reduce waste and increase reuse, recycling, and composting. In British Columbia, where packaging EPR has been in place since 2014, 90% of packaging is recycled. These programs are funded by producers and typically managed through a producer responsibility organization (PRO), with multi-stakeholder advisory council input and government oversight.

In Maine, the first state to enact such a law, multinational companies like Amazon and Walmart, which ship packaged goods into the state, will soon be required to reimburse municipalities for the cost of collecting, reusing, and recycling boxes and containers (small businesses are exempt from the fee). We will keep tracking the evolution of packaging EPR in Maryland.

by the team at PaintCare, a PSI Partner

PaintCare, the nonprofit organization that plans and operates paint stewardship programs in states that pass the paint stewardship law, is proud to celebrate one year in New York. The New York PaintCare program launched on May 1, 2022, and has been providing more convenient paint recycling in the state over the past year. To date, PaintCare has collected 727,000 gallons of paint for recycling in the state.

PaintCare operates programs in 10 additional states and jurisdictions including CA, CO, CT, DC, ME, MN, OR, RI, VT, and WA. In these states, paint recycling is made more convenient for households, businesses, contractors, and others with unwanted, leftover paint. In New York, there are 285 drop-off sites open year-round for paint recycling, and 2,450 drop-off sites across all program states. This resource benefits all community members and is available across the state, including in New York City.

To find a drop-off site near you, use PaintCare’s drop-off site locator to find the most convenient options to recycle your unwanted paint. PaintCare also offers a large volume pick-up service (LVP) for anyone with 100 gallons or more of paint, measured by container size, not liquid volume. These resources are available to anyone in all PaintCare states who wish to responsibly recycle leftover paint.

PaintCare keeps paint out of the waste stream by offering convenient ways to manage it by offering tips on using up leftover paint and providing drop-off sites and events in which communities and businesses can drop off unwanted paint. To date, PaintCare has collected over 64 million gallons of paint for recycling across the country.

For more information about paint recycling and to contact your local representative, visit PaintCare online at www.paintcare.org or call them at (855) PAINT-09.

Follow PaintCare on social media @WeRecyclePaint on Facebook and Instagram!

by the team at GDB International, a PSI Partner

“The Earth is not a gift from our parents, it’s a loan from our children.” – Mahatma Gandhi.

Last year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has used all the biological resources that Earth regenerates during the entire year. We know paint and coatings manufacturing is resource-intensive, so over 25 years ago, GDB Paint & Coatings set out to design several solutions to promote a net-zero paint industry.

Put simply, GDB gives new life to leftover and discarded paint. These solutions include taking a variety of materials that would otherwise be discarded as waste and reusing them in a sustainable manner.

Why is recycling important?

Recycling a gallon of paint can save the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Recycling paint needs much less energy than extracting and processing raw materials, as well as manufacturing new paint (PaintCare).
Paint recycling saves the use of natural resources, such as minerals and petroleum. Recycling one gallon of paint can conserve up to 8 pounds of virgin raw materials (US Environmental Protection Agency).

Where does the leftover paint come from?

The process begins by considering painters and DIY customers, who typically have leftover paint from domestic and industrial projects. This leftover paint makes up approximately 10% of the total paint used in the US annually.
Some of this leftover paint comes to PaintCare, a non-profit product stewardship organization created by the American Coatings Association. PaintCare works across US states that pass paint stewardship laws. The program has been established in California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont and, most recently, Washington and New York. GDB is a PaintCare partner and receives some of the collected paint, where it is sorted, processed and remanufactured.
Paint retailers and hardware stores often need to dispose of damaged products and mistints, which would also be considered waste.
Paint manufacturers also contribute to this waste with their leftover materials. These materials include paint that isn’t quite the right tint or quality and leftover materials from the paint production process. The production process generates “wash water” used to clean mixing tanks and pipes, which contains residual pigments, resins and solvents.
Lastly, raw material manufacturers may have stock that is too old to use or is not the right specification.

What does GDB do?

GDB has a long track record of reusing pre-consumer, post-consumer and post-industrial materials, which includes those aforementioned materials. The company cleans out any impurities and carefully analyses and blends the materials together to create new high-quality, affordable and eco-friendly paint.

What’s the impact?

In 2022, GDB reused paint and other materials leftover from consumers, retailers and paint manufacturers to make 3 million gallons of recycled paint – enough to paint all the homes in Salt Lake City. This achievement has significant environmental implications, as it not only reduces the amount of waste going to landfills but also saves resources by reusing the materials that would otherwise be wasted.
In addition to the environmental benefits, this process also has economic benefits. By reusing leftover materials, GDB can reduce the costs of production, which translates to lower prices for the consumers. Furthermore, it creates a sustainable business model, providing a competitive edge in the market by positioning the company as an environmentally responsible and innovative player in the paint industry.

GDB reprocesses dozens of truckloads of leftover and discarded paint every day. It has been a success story, not only for the company but also for the environment. The company’s dedication to sustainable practices has proven that eco-friendliness and economic prosperity can go hand in hand. It sets an example for other companies in the industry to follow and encourages consumers to make conscious choices in selecting products that have a positive impact on the environment.

Get in touch!

Come see us at the 2023 Florida Chapter NAHMMA Workshop in Daytona Beach, Florida on Monday May 15 thru Thursday May 18.
Write to us at hello@gdbinternational.com
Connect with us on LinkedIn