Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Packaging Epr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Producers, municipalities and recyclers debate packaging EPR as commission readies recommendations
Summary
Lawmakers heard competing views on extended producer responsibility for packaging and printed paper: environmental groups and municipal leaders urged EPR to shift costs to producers and expand collection, while industry and some waste haulers urged more collaborative rulemaking and raised concerns about program design and market effects.
State lawmakers heard sharply divergent testimony Oct. 12, 2025, on proposed extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging and printed paper, with advocates saying producers must shoulder collection and recycling costs and industry and some recyclers warning that program design and governance will determine whether EPR improves recovery or simply shifts costs.
Why it matters: Packaging and printed paper make up a large share of municipal disposal and recycling costs; witnesses said a well‑designed EPR could reduce municipal budgets, increase recycling and create markets for recycled content. Yet multiple stakeholders cautioned that details on rates, governance, and eligible materials are critical to avoid unintended consequences.
Advocates' case: David Melly, legislative director at the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a member of the state EPR commission, said effective EPR must (1) fund end‑of‑life management, (2) incentivize material reduction and recyclable design, and (3) set measurable reduction targets rather than merely paying for disposal. Arlene Diaz of the South Shore Recycling Cooperative told the committee packaging and paper account for nearly half of the commonwealth's combined trash and recycling stream and said EPR would help fund convenient recycling and reimburse municipal costs.
Industry and recycler concerns: Representatives of trade groups urged careful drafting. Alex Stockler of the Recycling Partnership cited data showing high access to recycling in Massachusetts but a low capture rate ("the recycling rate in Massachusetts sits at just 27%" he said), arguing that EPR should prioritize education, universal collection and market development. AmeriPEN and other industry groups said draft bills risk funding landfilling, limit producer input on program rules, and could require producers to pay 100% of collection costs in ways that may be infeasible or unfair in rural areas.
Operational risks: Waste haulers and facility operators testified that lithium‑ion batteries and other contaminants pose acute fire risks and that stable collection funding could help reduce hazards. Several witnesses urged alignment with other states' EPR laws to reduce compliance complexity for producers and to allow proven models to be copied rather than reinvented.
Next steps: The committee heard repeated calls to await and incorporate the state EPR commission's findings (due in stages through early 2026) while continuing targeted work on batteries and paint programs already under way. No formal votes occurred.
Sources: Testimony before the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Oct. 12, 2025.
