{"id":13024,"date":"2026-04-27T00:00:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T04:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=13024"},"modified":"2026-04-27T00:00:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T04:00:12","slug":"flexible-packaging-association-opposes-revised-new-york-epr-legislation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=13024","title":{"rendered":"Flexible Packaging Association Opposes Revised New York EPR Legislation"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n
<\/p>\n

\n

The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) said today that it opposes proposed packaging Extended Producer Responsibility<\/a> (EPR) legislation in New York (A.1749\/S.1464).\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile some positive and negative changes have recently been made to the bills, key requirements remain impractical and do not support new recycling technologies. FPA warns these issues will likely make essential goods less affordable and less useful for New Yorkers,\u201d FPA said in a statement.<\/p>\n

FPA believes the recent changes to the legislation still fail to address fundamental flaws that will disrupt New York\u2019s supply chain and ultimately increase costs to consumers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The bills mandate a 75% recycling rate by 2055 for plastic packaging, yet they explicitly ban advanced recycling technologies\u2014such as chemical recycling that breaks down plastics into their basic chemicals for reuse\u2014which FPA views as necessary to achieve that goal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBy prohibiting the most effective methods for processing flexible plastic packaging while simultaneously requiring a 30% reduction in that same packaging, the state is creating an extremely challenging compliance landscape,\u201d FPA says. \u201cThese infeasible goals, combined with a restrictive requirement that post-consumer recycled content be sourced only from domestic U.S. suppliers, will inevitably lead to product shortages and higher prices for New Yorkers.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPackaging policy changes that affect company costs and compliance responsibilities will inevitably impact how everyday goods are packaged, transported, and priced,\u201d said FPA President & CEO Dan Felton<\/strong>. \u201cAmong our concerns with the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act is that even with its recent amendments it will eliminate the flexible packaging that keeps essential consumer food and other products safe and sanitary. Without that, retailers and consumers face increased product damage, higher replacement costs, and less reliable shelf availability. We agree that we must improve recycling systems and reduce waste, but good public policy will also avoid higher costs and keep critical packaging in place to protect public health.\u201d<\/p>\n

FPA is also concerned about how the bill could affect New York families financially. The legislation requires producers to pay all the state\u2019s recycling costs, unlike the shared funding models now used in several other states with laws in place for packaging EPR. Producers would also have to pay disposal costs in areas where local governments choose not to provide services, leading to unpredictable expenses. \u201cAs a result, families already facing high living costs might see higher prices for basic items like bread, milk, and infant formula due to these added costs,\u201d FPA says.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) said today that it opposes proposed packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation in New York (A.1749\/S.1464).\u00a0 \u201cWhile some positive and negative changes have recently been made to the bills, key requirements remain impractical and do not support new recycling technologies. FPA warns these issues will likely make essential goods less […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":13025,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[165],"tags":[398,301,2262],"class_list":["post-13024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-packaging-news","tag-chemical-recycling","tag-packaging-regulations","tag-recycling-infrastructure"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13024\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/13025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}