Extended producer responsibility laws are proceeding from policy debates to legislation and into operational planning for pet food manufacturers and packaging suppliers. The basic idea is straightforward: companies that introduce products into the market subsequently help fund the collection, sorting and recycling of those products that the company created and profited from, rather than leaving most costs to local governments (ultimately taxpayers) and individuals.
For pet food, the implications mostly relate to packaging. Dry pet food often relies on specialized flexible bags. Although wet pet food traditionally uses aluminum cans, the format increasingly appears in pouches and trays. Extended producer responsibility programs may encourage the use of readily recyclable materials, like aluminum and glass, with lower fees, while penalizing harder-to-recycle materials with higher fees, pushing packaging design towards materials that established recycling systems can handle at scale.
Flexible pet food packaging harder to recycle than cans
Flexible packaging, including many pet food bags and pouches, often creates recycling and composting challenges. Flexible packages often have multi-layer or composite constructions designed for moisture and air barrier performance, shelf life and durability. Those same layers can be difficult to separate or process with standard recycling methods.
Collection is another barrier. The Recycling Partnership reports that only about 2% of United States households have curbside access for film and flexible packaging, which means most flexible packaging is not captured through mainstream residential recycling programs. When consumers place flexibles in curbside bins anyway, it can increase contamination and create sorting problems at materials recovery facilities, such as films wrapping around equipment and slowing processing.
Trays sit somewhere between flexibles and cans. Many plastic trays are rigid and, in theory, can be more compatible with mechanical recycling than multilayer pouches. In practice, tray recyclability depends on resin type, color, labeling, and food residue. Black plastics, for example, have been cited as difficult for optical sorters in many facilities, which can reduce capture even when consumers do everything “right,” reported TIME.
Aluminum cans, by contrast, are a mature recycling commodity with established end markets and strong scrap value. Aluminum also avoids the multilayer separation problem that is common in high-barrier flexibles. That does not mean aluminum recycling is perfect. There’s always the human element. The Aluminum Association reported that only 43% of aluminum cans shipped in the United States in 2023 were ultimately recycled, although cans are widely accepted and relatively straightforward to sort using eddy current technology in modern facilities.
Packaging producers may resist extended producer responsibility laws
Not surprisingly, some businesses have balked extended producer responsibility, reflecting a mix of cost, control and complexity.
- Cost transfer - Extended producer responsibility shifts system costs from municipalities to producers, and producers may argue they are paying for public services that were historically funded through taxes and local fees.
- Administrative burden and multi-state fragmentation - Producers selling nationally face differing definitions, timelines, exemptions and reporting rules across states, creating compliance overhead and data demands that can be material for both brand owners and packaging suppliers, according to law firm Barley Snyder.
- Fees for functional packaging - Pet food packaging is performance-driven: barrier layers, seals, and durability help protect product quality and reduce food waste. Producers may worry that fee structures penalize designs that are functionally important but hard to recycle today, particularly multilayer pouches and bags.
- Governance and control - Critics have warned that poorly designed programs can concentrate decision-making power in producer-led organizations in ways that reduce local government influence over recycling priorities, reported Waste Dive.
Where extended producer responsibility laws exist now — and where momentum is building
As of Oct. 1, 2025, seven states had enacted comprehensive extended producer responsibility laws focused on packaging: California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, according to Proskauer.
From an implementation standpoint, several state agencies and official program pages also describe the scope and timelines:
- California: Senate Bill 54 sets 2032 targets, including requirements tied to recyclability or compostability and a funding mechanism that CalRecycle says will raise $5 billion over 10 years. (CalRecycle)
- Colorado: House Bill 22-1355 establishes a producer responsibility program requiring companies selling products in packaging and paper products to fund a statewide recycling system. (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment)
- Oregon: Senate Bill 582 passed in 2021, became effective Jan. 1, 2022, and Oregon’s program changes began in July 2025. (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality)
- Minnesota: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency notes the state’s packaging extended producer responsibility law was signed in early 2024 and sets requirements that culminate in 2032 outcomes for covered packaging and paper. (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
- Maryland: Senate Bill 901 was approved by the governor and took effect June 1, 2025. (Maryland General Assembly)
- Washington: Senate Bill 5284 (the Recycling Reform Act) was signed into law May 17, 2025. (National Caucus of Environmental Legislators)
- Maine: Maine statute language describes a stewardship program that assesses and collects payments from producers and reimburses participating municipalities for certain recycling and waste management costs. (Maine Legislature)
Momentum is building beyond these seven states. In 2025, multiple states introduced comprehensive packaging extended producer responsibility bills, including New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina and Hawaii, according to Proskauer. Some states have taken “pre-law” steps such as needs assessments. Hawaii and Rhode Island passed legislation directing state agencies to evaluate the potential for an extended producer responsibility program, reported law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth. New Jersey had active packaging extended producer responsibility legislation in late 2025, though observers noted uncertain momentum, according to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition.
Pros and cons: what real-world experience is showing so far
Potential benefits: Supporters argue extended producer responsibility creates a more stable funding stream for recycling, improves consumer education consistency, and gives producers a direct incentive to shift packaging toward formats that can be collected and processed. The Recycling Partnership has pointed to international experience across multiple jurisdictions indicating that well-designed programs can increase recycling rates and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by investing in collection and processing capacity.
For pet food specifically, a key pro is that extended producer responsibility can create financial signals that favor packages with established recycling pathways. Aluminum cans may benefit from lower relative fees compared with multilayer pouches if state fee schedules strongly reflect real-world recyclability and end-market value. At the same time, extended producer responsibility also funds projects meant to close the gap for film and flexible packaging, such as improved capture at materials recovery facilities and downstream market development.
Potential drawbacks: Producers and packaging suppliers often point to rising compliance costs and the operational friction of a “patchwork” of state requirements. Legal and business advisories frequently emphasize that deadlines, reporting rules, exemptions and penalty structures vary, raising the risk of errors for companies that ship product into multiple states, reported Barley Snyder. Critics also argue that extended producer responsibility can be designed in ways that reduce transparency or local control if producer-led organizations dominate decision-making, reported Waste Dive.
For pet food there are practical problems: flexible bags and pouches often deliver strong shelf life, lower transportation emissions per unit, and consumer convenience, yet their recycling is limited in most of the United States. Extended producer responsibility can accelerate investment, but it can also increase near-term costs for packages that are hard to recycle today, potentially reshaping packaging portfolios before infrastructure catches up.
