Pack Expo 2026: US EPR patchwork pushes packaging industry toward redesign

The US packaging industry is entering a period of significant regulatory change, highlighted industry experts at Pack Expo 2026 in Chicago. More states are expected to introduce packaging EPR legislation in the coming year, but the lack of a unified federal framework means the industry will continue to navigate different requirements and approaches. 

At the event, LyondellBasell (LYB), Mondi, Plastic Ingenuity, Pregis, and Shurtape told Packaging Insights that this uncertainty is making long-term investment decisions more difficult for packagers and brand owners. The experts also point to packaging EPRs as a source of innovation in materials, lightweighting, and design. 

Kristin Oyler, director of marketing at Mondi, says that “the big thing” driving the evolution of the US packaging industry right now is EPR laws. “There is some federal legislation working its way through Congress right now, but at the moment everything is designated by state. So, we might end up with a patchwork quilt of different regulations.” 

“California’s SB 54 [EPR regulation] is the big driver because California is such a big economy. While Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, and other states have their EPR laws, everyone is trying to understand what California is going to require so they can be compliant.” 

Oyler says EPR requirements are also prompting manufacturers to reconsider packaging formats and material choices, including reducing material use by switching from rigid to flexible packaging or replacing plastic with paper-based alternatives. 

For Al Pizzuti, LYB's industry marketing manager, state EPRs are increasingly affected by domestic and international politics. 

“Everybody’s going out to vote in the next week,” Pizzuti tells us, referring to the US mid-term elections.  “And from a global standpoint, you see a lot of this globalization and regionalization going back and forth.” 

“Depending on different business models and where they operate, [political] developments are affecting them in various ways and forcing them to make very different decisions. At LYB, we continue to see developments from an EPR standpoint as regulations roll out, and what that means materially.” 

Cost of fragmentation 

The lack of convergence between state-level EPR frameworks in the US is creating challenges for packaging manufacturers, particularly those operating across states. 

Pizzuti argues that the differing requirements are making it difficult for companies to plan investments in new packaging. “That is very much creating challenges for companies because each state wants something different. If we could find ways to drive convergence in certain areas, that would help.” 

He adds that uncertainty is particularly worrying when large-scale investments aim to develop new materials and packaging designs. “When you have that divergence, and you’re talking about making multimillion-dollar investments in the industry, it becomes very difficult to [achieve] if you don’t have confidence that your solution will satisfy all of those different requirements.” 

Similarly, Joe Garvey, senior product manager of industrial packaging at Shurtape, questions how EPR requirements will be enforced and who will be considered the responsible producer. “Sustainability in regulations is only as good as it’s being upheld,” he asserts. 

“So, is it being upheld? Obviously, that’s a big question. What do the fines look like? Those aren’t well defined yet either.” 

Additionally, he says that there are challenges in “determining responsibility” even under California's SB 54, where identifying the responsible producer is a key hurdle, according to him. 

Meanwhile, Mondi’s Oyler says packaging producers and suppliers are closely monitoring legislative developments to avoid investing in packaging solutions that might need to be redesigned in the near future. 

“Everybody in the industry, us as suppliers as well as the brand owners, is watching this because nobody wants to go down a path that they then need to completely pivot away from.” 

Practical EPR challenges 

The speakers acknowledge that despite the lack of convergence, EPR requirements are encouraging manufacturers to make some changes that can be seen as positive from an environmental perspective. These include reconsidering packaging materials and formats; redesigning packaging involves balancing recyclability and recycled content with product protection, production efficiency, and cost. 

In the context of EPR laws, Zach Muscato, director of sustainability and innovation at US-based Plastic Ingenuity, emphasizes the primary function of packaging. 

“The way I think about it is that the package has a job to do first and foremost, and that’s to protect the product. If you’re not protecting the product, your package could be made of the most sustainable material possible, but at the end of the day, it's not sustainable.” 

He says that Plastic Ingenuity works with its customers to identify the functions of each package before considering opportunities for improvement. As an example, he points to a charcuterie company producing trays for meat, cheese, and crackers. 

According to Muscato, Plastic Ingenuity worked with the company to lightweight the trays and replaced virgin material with mechanically recycled plastic, achieving 80% recycled content while retaining the package’s original footprint and critical properties. 

“Source reduction is a key pillar of EPR, and we make this tray out of 80% recycled content, replacing virgin material with mechanically recycled material. But what we did was maintain the footprint and all the critical aspects of the package, so that, at the end of the day, this was a drop-in replacement for them.” 

The redesign did not require extensive changes to the customer’s production line or the way consumers interacted with the packaging. However, Zach says lightweighting has limits, as removing too much material can compromise performance and lead to product waste or scrap. 

“It’s really about getting down to the minimum amount of material while ensuring the package still functions,” he says. “If we go too far in the other direction and start having product waste or scrap, it defeats the purpose of the packaging change.” 

Redesign opportunities 

The US-based global packaging company Pregis offers another example of how manufacturers are adapting flexible packaging structures to meet changing requirements. 

Megan Marko, product and market development director at Pregis, describes a metalized PE sealant layer laminated to a machine-direction-oriented (MDO) print web, designed as a recyclable alternative to conventional structures. 

“It’s a mono structure that’s recyclable even with the metallization, and it replaces either an oriented PP (OPP) structure that’s not recyclable or a metallized polyester that would be laminated to PE, which is also not recyclable. It matches the performance of the traditional materials, the polyester and the OPP, but with a recyclable structure,” she says. 

Marko says the structure was developed partly in response to EPR requirements, which can affect the fees paid by producers. “That is part of the reason why we developed this structure because, with recycled PE rather than OPP, which is not considered recyclable under EPR. The EPR fees would be much lower in this case.” 

Shurtape’s Joe Garvey, senior product manager of industrial packaging, highlights another challenge when designing with packaging EPRs in mind: Improving packaging components that are often overlooked in discussions about recyclability. 

“A lot of the time, tapes are thought of as a small part of the whole when it pertains to packaging. It’s billions of dollars. It’s billions of square meters a year. It’s a much larger component,” Garvey says. “At the end of the day, tape has three factors that make it imperative in the market: scale, performance, and cost.” 

He highlights that Shurtape has developed post-consumer recycled (PCR)-based film tape using recycled water bottles. Garvey says the product is designed to fit into existing operations without requiring changes that could cause production downtime. 

“But it’s also imperative that we have products like a film-based PCR tape that’s taking water bottles and turning them into tape. That isn’t going to risk potential downtime associated with a changeover, or the downtime associated with rework being done. We want to make sure our product is as seamless as possible in a current operation.” 

The availability of suitable recycled materials presents another obstacle, particularly for food-contact packaging, Mondi’s Oyler outlines. 

“We need brands and companies to create demand so that recyclers can financially justify collecting the material and building clean recycling facilities,” she says, describing the situation as a “chicken-and-egg” problem. She adds: “I do think laws and legislation in different states will be the impetus that gets things moving.” 

LYB’s Pizzuti points out that replacing conventional multimaterial structures with alternatives that meet recyclability requirements also involves significant technical and commercial considerations. “But at the same time, the multimaterial structures that were here yesterday are not necessarily going to be viable tomorrow.” 

Pizzuti adds that companies increasingly need to assess the total cost of using and owning packaging solutions, while working with partners across the value chain to inform investment decisions. This is particularly important given the high capital expenditure required to develop and implement new technologies.