The United States is tightening packaging regulations in 2026, with new federal proposals and state laws targeting environmental claims, harmful chemicals and waste management.
The changes signal a shift towards stricter oversight of “sustainable packaging” and greater accountability for producers across the packaging value chain.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
For international businesses, the developments point to a more complex but increasingly standardised regulatory landscape in one of the world’s largest consumer markets.
Clearer rules on green claims
A central development is the proposed PACK Act, which aims to create a national framework for environmental marketing claims on packaging.
At present, companies face a fragmented system of state-level rules. The bill would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to define terms such as “recyclable” and “compostable”, and to enforce their use.
Industry stakeholders have long argued that the current system creates confusion. One widely cited concern is the “patchwork” of rules, which the legislation seeks to replace with “harmonised standards”.
At state level, California SB 343 introduces one of the strictest measures to date. From October 2026, packaging can only display the recycling symbol if it meets real-world recyclability thresholds, including access for at least 60% of residents.
The move is widely seen as part of a broader crackdown on greenwashing, with direct implications for global packaging design and labelling.
Pressure to remove PFAS and plastics
US states are also accelerating restrictions on hazardous materials in food packaging, particularly PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals”.
Illinois has banned the sale of food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS from January 2026. Maine will follow with a similar ban on plant-based packaging formats, including takeaway containers and boxes.
These measures reflect growing scientific and regulatory concern over the persistence of PFAS in the environment and their potential health impacts.
At the same time, several states are expanding bans on polystyrene foam packaging. New York has extended restrictions to include cold storage containers, while Virginia’s ban will apply to all foodservice vendors from mid-2026.
Regulators are also turning attention to emerging risks. In April 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed it will treat microplastics as a “priority contaminant group”, a step that could shape future monitoring and compliance requirements.
Producer responsibility and rising costs
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are gaining traction across multiple states, requiring companies to take financial and operational responsibility for packaging waste.
California’s programme under SB 54 is advancing in 2026, with producers working through the Circular Action Alliance to design a system ahead of fee implementation in 2027. Maine, Oregon and Colorado have also set deadlines for producer registration and data reporting.
EPR policies are intended to shift the cost of waste management from local authorities to producers, while encouraging packaging designs that are easier to recycle or reuse.
At the same time, external pressures are affecting the sector. New tariffs on imported metals, including steel and aluminium, are increasing input costs for packaging manufacturers. Industry groups warn that this could add further strain as companies adapt to new compliance requirements.
The combined effect of these measures marks a significant transition in US packaging policy. Regulators are moving to tighten definitions, restrict problematic materials and enforce lifecycle responsibility.
For global packaging producers and exporters, the direction is clear: stricter rules, closer scrutiny and a growing expectation that environmental claims are backed by verifiable evidence.
