What to Know About Extended Producer Responsibility Laws

As EPR laws continue to gain traction in multiple states, dealers will soon see new reporting requirements, packaging rules and added costs.

By Bridget McCrea
Contributing Writer

Evolving regulations pose constant challenges for businesses, especially small and midsized companies that may not have dedicated compliance teams. From labor rules to tax changes to environmental mandates, the fast-shifting regulatory landscape makes it easy for proposed requirements to be overlooked until they are already in place. But when it comes to the emergence of extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, foodservice equipment and supplies dealers can’t afford to wait to see how extensive the effects will be.

EPR laws are complex, but at a high level they assign recycling and waste management responsibilities to the businesses that introduce products and packaging into the marketplace. Specifically for foodservice equipment and supplies dealers, the laws could create new fees, reporting rules and added pressure to rethink packaging, sourcing and supplier relationships.

Trade groups such as the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) have come out strongly against the EPR model, arguing that it creates unnecessary burdens for distributors and fails to consider the complexity of the modern supply chain. Despite those warnings, several states have already passed EPR legislation, and more may soon follow. While the full scope and enforcement details for these new laws are unclear as many states are still defining procedures and undergoing rulemaking, dealers are encouraged to monitor developments closely.

What Are EPR Laws Anyway?

Put simply, EPR is a policy approach that labels certain companies, including dealers, as producers and assigns them responsibility for the end-of-life of products. This can include both financial responsibility and operational responsibility, though the amount and type may differ. Producers are required to provide funding and/or services that assist in managing covered products after they are used. EPR policies are being put in place to help promote waste reduction and incentivize product design that minimizes environmental impacts. However, they also impose burdensome regulatory requirements and new costs on businesses.

Most EPR programs either encourage or require companies defined as producers to join a collective producer responsibility organization (PRO), which develops a producer responsibility plan and manages the producer responsibility program. In some states, these components are referred to as a stewardship organization and stewardship plan. PROs are typically required to be nonprofit organizations, and most state laws allow for multiple PROs to operate within a single region’s EPR programs, though in practice, states like Oregon and California have only authorized one PRO at this time.

The financial structure may vary, but in most EPR programs producers, including distributors, pay fees to the PRO. The PRO then uses those funds to cover the costs for the end-of-life management of covered products (collection, sortation, processing). Covered products are either defined in legislation or in the producer responsibility plan and are the specific items or materials that must be managed within the program.

How Will EPR Laws Affect Distributors?

Over the past 20 years, lawmakers have steadily expanded the scope of recycling laws, moving beyond hazardous items like electronics and paint to include everyday waste such as plastic packaging and paper products. The goal is to shift recycling costs away from taxpayers to the companies that introduce these materials into the market. By requiring producers to fund end-of-life management, states hope to improve the recycling system and drive manufacturers to design products with less environmental impact.

For foodservice equipment dealers, that means paying closer attention to packaging, materials and supply chain partners as this regulatory shift continues. Seven states (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine) have already passed EPR laws, and similar legislation has been introduced this year in eight more states. For dealers that ship products into any of the seven states and particularly those using cardboard boxes, plastic wrap, or foodservice disposables, EPR laws may create new reporting, registration and financial responsibilities, NAW asserts.

The first EPR law went into effect in Oregon on July 1, bringing much greater attention and scrutiny to the laws as the effect on distributors has become clearer. Here’s how the other six states are approaching EPR and the deadlines for compliance and participation:

Maine passed its law establishing a stewardship program for packaging material in July 2021. The state is currently engaging in the formal rulemaking process, with the program set to be fully operational in 2027.

In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore signed S.B. 901 into law this year. The Maryland Department of the Environment has already approved the Circular Action Alliance as the state’s PRO for EPR.

Minnesota’s Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act was signed into law last year. As of July 1, 2025, producers are required to join a PRO that is registered with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

Washington’s Recycling Reform Act was signed into law this year. Under the law, a PRO must be selected by Jan. 1, 2026, with producers being required to register with a PRO by July 1, 2026.

In California, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act has been in place for three years. California is currently in the formal rulemaking process to implement the law. Also, CalRecycle is currently undergoing formal rulemaking for its EPR requirements (S.B. 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Permanent Regulations Overview), which establishes the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. The act imposes minimum content requirements for single-use packaging and plastic foodservice ware to be achieved through an EPR program.

In Colorado, the Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act was signed into law in 2022 by Gov. Jared Polis. To meet the Colorado reporting deadline, obligated producers must have signed the Participant Producer Agreement and the Colorado State Addendum, logged into the Producer Portal and filed their reports by July 31, 2025.

It’s evident that EPR laws are evolving quickly and, as details change, foodservice equipment dealers may find themselves scrambling to catch up. While requirements vary by state and many details are still in flux, the trend is clear: Companies that sell into affected states (and particularly those using a significant amount of packaging) should pay close attention to new registration, reporting and fee structures. Taking time now to understand the exposure will help dealers avoid compliance issues and surprise costs later.

Packaging Under Pressure

As states continue to introduce and pass EPR laws for packaging, plastic and paper, more producers will have to register, report and pay fees to their PROs for the covered products. NAW continues to track and monitor state EPR legislation and is taking the position that such acts miss the target and threaten the viability of the wholesale distribution industry nationwide. 

In another statement on the issue, NAW said EPR laws that enact regulatory and punitive financial burdens on wholesalers and distributors are “ineffective policies ignoring the key players in any circular economy, shielding consumers and companies that would have the greatest impact on sustainability and consumer behavior.”

Primarily serving the business-to-business marketplace, wholesaler distributors offer warehousing, logistics and shipping from manufacturers and producers to retailers, contractors and other businesses. As such, NAW contends they should not be classified as “producers” in EPR laws. Additionally, while NAW is supportive of the goals of circularity — the concept of reusing and recycling materials to reduce waste — the association opposes EPR laws that regulate or tax a product at the wholesaler-distributor level of the supply chain.

Distributors in the Crosshairs

Supporters of EPR laws believe they help to achieve environmental goals, such as state-mandated recycling targets and the creation of products that are better designed to become part of the recycling lifecycle. Europe and Canada have already begun implementing EPR laws, explained Lauren Williams, vice president of government relations at NAW, which is how this policy made its way to the United States.

“Proponents of the laws are intentionally trying to spread the responsibility of recycling away from the consumer and up the supply chain,” Williams said. “Unfortunately, distributors are a part of the supply chain that has little if any control over decisions on how a product is designed or if it can or will be eventually recycled.”

Under state law, for example, a distributor that’s been deemed a producer of the product would need to join a PRO. These non-governmental entities set the fees and standards, then manage the state stewardship program. “The distributor would then have to register as a producer in the state, report the amount of product and ultimately pay the fee that is assessed by the PRO,” Williams explains.

In Oregon, for example, the initial fees are retroactive, which places a significant financial burden on distributors. Additionally, the fees that are assessed by the PRO may be greater than the profit margins on the product or even the price of the product. Lastly, this places new operational burdens on distributors to accurately report to the PRO the volume of products being sold into the state.

“Every state has different penalties in place for non-compliance but they are all quite expensive,” Williams said. For instance, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has the authority to assess penalties for non-compliance, which can reach up to $25,000 per day. And in Colorado, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment can assess penalties of $5,000 for the first day of the violation and $1,500 for each following day until the violation is cured.

NAW requested a one-year delay of Oregon’s enforcement of the law due to the widespread confusion and a substantial number of outstanding questions. Oregon denied the request and chose to move forward with its implementation. In response, NAW filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Oregon, claiming the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act and related regulations violate both U.S. and Oregon constitutions.

“Oregon’s law is an unprecedented program seeking to broadly regulate entities across the supply chain and affecting virtually every aspect of intra and interstate commerce for products purchased in Oregon, all while delegating essential regulatory authority to a private, third-party organization,” Williams said.

Specifically, NAW’s lawsuit states the Oregon EPR is unconstitutional because it:

• Delegates control over the EPR program, including the setting of fees wholesaler-distributors must pay to a private, third-party group (the Circular Action Alliance, or CAA), with a financial interest in the program without clear rules or oversight
• Unfairly targets out-of-state producers, disrupts national markets, and tries to control business outside Oregon, violating the U.S. Constitution’s limits on state regulation of interstate commerce
• Mandates producers sign contracts with a single approved private organization (CAA), giving up their economic freedom and due process rights
• Subjects producers to fees and rules set by CAA without a real chance to object or appeal or to expect transparency in the process.

“While NAW supports the goal of a circular economy, the Oregon EPR law as enacted is unconstitutional, creates new mandates, inhibits interstate commerce, and fails at its primary goal of encouraging circularity,” Eric Hoplin, NAW president and CEO, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

Don’t Wait for a Fee Notice

Asked what distributors can be doing now to educate their state officials about the impact of EPR laws, Williams recommended sharing with them how the law impacts the industry. One key talking point she suggested is how the law shifts the burden away from key decision-makers onto distributors by enacting mandates and fines.

“The intention of the law is to create a circular economy, but the burden is being placed on the part of the supply chain that does not have a direct impact, like consumers, retailers and manufacturers do,” Williams says. “Distributors have little to no control over decisions to design, reduce, reuse, or recycle a product. Therefore, state officials should not regulate or tax at the wholesaler-distributor level of the supply chain.”

During a recent presentation to the FEDA Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Council, Brian Wild, vice president of government relations at NAW, cautioned dealers not to underestimate the complexity or potential cost of new EPR laws. Using Oregon as the first case study, he outlined how the state now requires companies to register, report their packaging materials and pay fees determined by a PRO that operates with little transparency or recourse.

“There’s no way to calculate your own fee, no appeals process and the costs can be substantial,” Wild warned. “We talked to one company whose annual EPR bill for Oregon alone was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

While large retailers and producers may have helped shape some of the legislation, Wild said distributors are now left to absorb the impact, especially in packaging-heavy sectors like foodservice. NAW is actively exploring further legal challenges at both the state and federal level, arguing that delegating tax authority to a private organization may be unconstitutional. “If you sell into Oregon, register now,” Wild advised. “But we are not sitting still. We’re working hard to stop this before it spreads further.”