New York’s packaging EPR bills stall gain — But the Debate is far from over

For the third consecutive year, proposed packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation in New York has failed to cross the finish line — this time as the 2026 legislative session closed without final votes on A.1749/S.1464, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act.

The outcome was welcomed by the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), which has been one of the most vocal industry groups opposing the bill. From its perspective, the legislation — despite amendments—remained fundamentally flawed, with mandates that were not only aggressive, but in some cases, unrealistic given current infrastructure and market conditions.

At the heart of the debate is a familiar tension: how to push sustainability forward without breaking the systems that support everyday packaging, particularly for food and healthcare.

“We must expand recycling systems and reduce waste, but good public policy must balance sustainability goals with economic reality,” says Dan Felton, president and CEO of FPA. “For three years in a row now, this deeply flawed legislation has stalled because it set arbitrary mandates that would have disrupted the supply chains keeping consumer food and medical products safe and sanitary.”

Among the sticking points were requirements viewed by the industry as unattainable, including a 75% recycling rate and a 30% source reduction mandate. Critics also pointed to the bill’s exclusion of advanced recycling technologies—particularly chemical recycling—as a missed opportunity to support emerging solutions that could help close the gap in flexible packaging recovery.

Another major concern centered on cost. The proposed legislation would have shifted 100% of municipal recycling and disposal costs for packaging onto producers. While that aligns with the core principle of EPR, industry groups argue that, in practice, those costs would inevitably be passed downstream—impacting pricing for essential goods ranging from groceries to infant formula.

There are also broader supply chain implications. Provisions restricting post-consumer recycled content to domestic sources raised concerns about material availability, particularly in a market that is already struggling to scale high-quality recycled feedstock.

Still, while this version of the bill has stalled, the broader movement toward EPR in the U.S. is not slowing down. States like Maine, Oregon, California, and Colorado have already enacted EPR laws, and New York remains a key battleground given its size and influence.

What this latest pause likely signals is not a retreat, but a recalibration.

For converters, suppliers, and brand owners, the message is clear: EPR is coming — it’s just a question of how, and how fast. The next iteration of legislation will almost certainly return, and when it does, it will continue to test the industry’s ability to balance sustainability ambitions with technical feasibility and economic reality.

In the meantime, the conversation continues — and so does the pressure to innovate, invest, and collaborate on solutions that can work at scale.