The Three-State US EPR Clash: Packaging Guide for Exporters as California SB 54 Faces Pushback

Because businesses simply cannot afford the current implementation costs. California SB 54 originally required all plastic packaging to be recyclable or compostable by 2032, but the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) has teamed up with farmers, food manufacturers, and retailers to urge the California Legislature to pump the brakes. From my conversations with export clients over recent months, anxiety around this law is boiling over. While the intent is good, the recycling infrastructure is nowhere near ready, especially with the massive gap in processing flexible films. Forcing this through right now will only cause costs to skyrocket. The California Air Resources Board (CAA) has received a flood of feedback on the proposal. This fight is far from over, but it does not mean environmental requirements will roll back. It is simply a push to buy more transition time

The old shortcut of 'if it meets California standards, it sells anywhere in the US' is officially dead. While California is stuck in debates, Washington State is reviewing its statewide recycling list, and Oregon is awaiting a ruling on its EPR lawsuit. With all three states moving in different directions, packaging compliance costs across the US are fracturing along state lines. What export brands fear most right now is having the exact same shipment pass inspection in State A, only to face fines or repackaging demands in State B. Regulatory fragmentation is already underway, creating a serious material stocking and quality control test for Taiwanese OEMs that rely on standardized production

Build a state-by-state compliance matrix early and speed up your material transition. Once you see through this EPR turf war, you cannot just sit back and hope the rules get repealed. People can argue over who pays the bill, but turning eco-friendly criteria into mandatory procurement requirements is not going away. Here are three practical recommendations for export brands:

・ Ditch multi-layer laminated films: Shift to mono-materials as early as possible. This is not just a California requirement. It is the safest bet for handling changes across state recycling lists. Work with manufacturers that understand material properties, such as MINDS, to run sample tests early rather than scrambling to redesign after orders get held up

・ Build a state-by-state compliance matrix: Audit your core sales states, mapping out their definitions of recyclable materials and effective dates. If you lack internal resources for this, bring in the Mai Strategy Knowledge Academy consulting team to help sort through the details and establish clear compliance boundaries

・ Keep material data on file: Future procurement requirements will demand compliance proof. From upstream adhesives and inks to base substrates, archive all Technical Data Sheets (TDS) so you are always ready for brand audit inspections

・ California SB 54 triggered pushback due to inadequate recycling infrastructure, but the broader environmental trajectory remains unchanged

・ Washington and Oregon are taking their own EPR steps. Relying on California as a single national benchmark no longer works

・ Mono-materials offer the best answer to regulatory fragmentation. Structural improvements at the source beat downstream fixes

・ Creating a dedicated state compliance matrix and material database is your ticket to securing North American orders

Do not view EPR as merely a regulatory headache. It is an opportunity to reshape your bargaining power in the supply chain. While competitors are still waiting to see if California loosens its rules, whoever boosts mono-material yields first and gets compliance proofs in order will secure a solid footing in the next wave of North American brand procurement reshuffles

・ FPA Signs Coalition Letter to the California Legislature Requesting a Pause to California’s SB 54