EPR Policy Guidelines for the Fresh Produce Supply Chain

May 18, 2026

Executive Summary & Key Takeaways

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) supports practical and effective environmental policies, including approaches that advance recycling, composting, and circular economy objectives.
Fresh produce supply chains are uniquely sensitive to packaging changes because packaging plays a critical role in preventing food waste, ensuring food safety, maintaining traceability, and preserving product access.
Because fresh produce operates on thin margins, EPR laws must be evaluated not just through an environmental lens, but as food and supply chain policy.
We advocate for food waste prevention credits to ensure that packaging reduction mandates do not inadvertently increase global food waste.

How does Extended Producer Responsibility affect fresh produce packaging?

EPR laws impose new financial and administrative burdens on fresh produce supply chains—from growers and distributors to retailers. For fresh produce specifically, packaging is not just a marketing tool; it is essential for reducing food waste, ensuring quality, and complying with federal food safety standards (like the Food Safety Modernization Act), as well as labeling and traceability regulations.

Policies that significantly increase the cost of this protective packaging or restrict its use run the risk of reducing the availability of fresh produce, increasing food loss, and unintentionally exacerbating food insecurity in vulnerable communities.

Who pays for Extended Producer Responsibility programs, and is it a tax?

Under EPR models, the financial mechanisms shift end-of-life management costs primarily onto producers, brand owners, and distributors. Adding these costs can disrupt efficient supply chains, leading to higher food prices for consumers.

The Core Policy Stance: Principles for Effective EPR

Where states pursue EPR policies, IFPA believes frameworks should be material-agnostic and carefully structured. They must encourage recyclable, compostable, and novel materials while preserving functional performance.

1. Performance-Based Food Waste Prevention Credit
Reducing food waste often delivers greater environmental benefit than marginal reductions in packaging weight. IFPA proposes prioritizing net environmental outcomes rather than just packaging weight. States should exclude or offer credits for packaging formats where credible evidence shows the packaging reduces food loss beyond unpackaged alternatives.

2. Guardrails for Compliance with Federal Labeling and Food Safety
Packaging reduction mandates often ignore federal regulations on food safety (FSMA), USDA Organic labeling, and bioengineered disclosures. EPR policies must explicitly exclude packaging required to comply with these federal performance-based outcomes.

3. Eco-Modulation Guardrails and Predictability
Unpredictable fee structures discourage long-term investment in sustainable packaging. IFPA advocates for statutory guardrails including transparent fee-setting methodologies, advance notice of fee changes, and an annual cap on percentage increases of material fees.

4. Recyclable Packaging Recognition & Infrastructure Alignment
Inconsistent definitions of recyclability across state lines penalize technically recyclable packaging if local infrastructure is lacking. EPR policies should establish nationally consistent definitions and focus on funding recycling infrastructure expansion rather than shifting financial responsibility entirely onto perishable food supply chains.

5. Compostable Packaging Alignment
Certified compostable packaging enables the co-management of unsold food via organics collection. It should be eligible for favorable eco-modulation fees regardless of current local composting infrastructure availability

6. Interstate Consistency and Predictable Compliance
Agricultural supply chains cross state lines. We demand rigorous, transparent state oversight of third-party EPR implementers (PRO’s) to ensure that policy direction, enforcement, and fee structures remain under the control of elected and accountable state officials.

7. Automation and Equipment Compatibility
Significant investments have been made in existing packing automation. EPR transition timelines must be extended for packaging formats that require the overhaul of automated packing infrastructure, supported by R&D grants.

Examples of Fresh Produce Packaging to be Excluded From EPR Regulations

IFPA recommends the following specific categories of packaging for exclusion or preferred fee treatment under state PROs (Producer Responsibility Organizations):

Packaging Type

Proposed Exclusion Category

Rationale / Function

Primary
(Direct contact with produce: clamshells, bags, film)

Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), tamper-evident packaging, and unit-level packaging carrying traceability codes.

Preserves shelf life, prevents moisture loss/bruising, and complies with food safety and traceability mandates.

Primary

Packaging incorporating verified post-consumer recycled (PCR) content (e.g., rPET).

Supports circular material markets without compromising product protection or food safety.

Secondary
(Handling/Display: case boxes, RPCs)

Corrugated produce boxes, reusable plastic containers (RPCs), and sanitary liners/pads.

Necessary to prevent bruising, leakage, cross-contamination, and to maintain cold-chain temperature integrity during transport.

Tertiary
(Shipping: pallets, stretch wrap)

Reusable pallets, pallet pooling systems, corner boards, and load-stabilization stretch wrap.

Prevents load shifts and damage in transit; many already operate in closed-loop systems.

IFPA Policy Position:

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Executive Summary & Key Takeaways

How does Extended Producer Responsibility affect fresh produce packaging?

Who pays for Extended Producer Responsibility programs, and is it a tax?

The Core Policy Stance: Principles for Effective EPR

Examples of Fresh Produce Packaging to be Excluded From EPR Regulations

Related Resources