Compostable packaging and EPR in the United States

Document: https://greenblue.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/SPC-EPR-Composting-101-Resource.pdf

As the world pays ever closer attention to sustainability and the circular economy, dealing with packaging waste has become an urgent challenge. Two concepts stand out in this effort and are reshaping the industry: compostable packaging and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy. A comprehensive resource published in July 2025 by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC), a project of the environmental non-profit GreenBlue, examines the complex intersection of the two, analysing how US states are integrating composting systems into their emerging EPR laws.

What is EPR, and what role does compostable packaging play?

At its core, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that changes the traditional model of waste management². Today, in most parts of the United States, the financial burden of collecting, transporting and treating waste and recyclables falls on municipalities and taxpayers³. EPR reverses that model by assigning responsibility — both financial and operational — for the end of a product's life to the producers, brands and retailers that put it on the market. This fundamental shift aims to encourage producers to design packaging that is easier to recycle, reusable or compostable, while creating a stable source of funding to improve waste management infrastructure.

Within this ecosystem, compostable packaging plays a distinctive role. It is packaging that can break down through biological processes into carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds and biomass, leaving no visible fragments or toxic residue at unacceptable levels⁵. Its main value lies in its ability to capture food waste and divert it from landfill⁶. When food waste is landfilled it decomposes and generates methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide⁷. Compostable packaging, especially in food service, lets consumers put containers, cutlery and leftovers in the same bin, simplifying sorting and raising food waste diversion rates⁸.

Why integrate composting into EPR?

Because early EPR programmes focused mainly on recycling, the rise of compostable packaging raised an important question: should composting be written into these laws?⁹ The SPC report argues that such integration is critical. Compostable packaging is already in our waste stream, and without a proper recovery pathway it ends up in landfill or contaminates the recycling stream. When EPR programmes fund composting collection and processing systems, they create a route for this packaging to reach its highest and best use: feedstock for compost.

That integration can take several forms:

Needs assessment: EPR programmes can require a comprehensive assessment of existing composting infrastructure and identify what is needed to expand access for residents.
Covered material: compostable packaging is formally recognised as a "covered material" in the programme, ensuring it is managed properly.
Cost reimbursement: composting facilities are reimbursed for the cost of processing the material, much as Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) are funded for recycling¹⁴.
Education and outreach: producer fees can fund public education campaigns on how to sort and dispose of compostable products correctly, including tackling confusion with "look-alike" products that are not compostable.
Convenience standard: ensuring that collection of compostable material is as convenient for residents as recycling collection¹⁶.

The EPR landscape across the United States: a state-by-state analysis

As of 2025, seven US states had passed packaging EPR laws, with varying degrees of composting integration¹⁷. The SPC resource groups them into three categories.

1. States that do not focus on composting (Maine and Oregon):

The EPR programmes in Maine and Oregon contain no explicit provisions focused on composting¹⁸. In Oregon, however, all packaging (with some exemptions) must be reported and is subject to fees regardless of whether it is recyclable or compostable¹⁹. In Maine, although there is no specific provision, the state Department of Environmental Protection may designate certain materials as "compostable" under ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards, though it has not yet done so for any packaging.

2. The pioneering states (California, Colorado, Minnesota):

These three states have explicitly integrated composting into their EPR laws. Despite their differences, their programmes share a number of features:

Representation on advisory boards: ensuring the composting industry has a voice in the bodies that govern the programme²³.
Funding and fee adjustment: providing funding for composting facilities and using an "eco-modulation" fee structure that encourages producers to use more compostable packaging by lowering fees for sustainable designs.
Targets and statewide lists: California sets a target of 100% of packaging being recyclable or compostable by 2032, while Minnesota requires the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) to set its own composting recovery targets²⁵. All three states plan to publish statewide lists of materials considered compostable²⁶.

Inconsistencies remain, nonetheless. Minnesota and Colorado, for instance, use different legal definitions of terms such as "compostable material" and "composting", often based on ASTM D6400 and D6868^. Notably, California currently has no statutory definition of these terms, something likely to be clarified during the state's rulemaking²⁸.

3. The newest wave (Maryland and Washington): Maryland and Washington passed EPR laws in May 2025, bringing the total to seven states and covering more than a fifth of the US population. Although these programmes are at an early stage, their laws take a comprehensive approach to composting³⁰. Both states include composting rate targets, fold composting into the needs assessment, guarantee representation on advisory boards, and contain provisions on funding, education, infrastructure investment and service expansion.

Conclusions and outlook

Integrating compostable packaging into US EPR programmes is a new but increasingly important effort³². The SPC report carries a clear message: the producers and brands making compostable packaging, who pay fees into the EPR system, want to see their products composted properly. Those fees should therefore be used to support and build the collection and processing infrastructure required³³.

Looking ahead, Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) will be crucial in setting fee structures and deciding where to invest to improve the system³⁴. As more states consider and pass EPR laws, the lessons from California, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington will provide an important roadmap for ensuring that compostable packaging can deliver on its promise of a genuinely circular economy.

A view for Viet Nam: applying international experience to the EPR roadmap

Viet Nam formally began implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) on 1 January 2024, an important step in managing waste and advancing the circular economy under the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection. At present Viet Nam's EPR rules focus mainly on recycling conventional packaging such as plastic, paper, metal and glass. The experience of US states in integrating compostable packaging into EPR law offers valuable lessons for Viet Nam's next phase.

Challenges and opportunities in integrating compostable packaging

As in the United States, compostable packaging is becoming more common in Viet Nam, particularly in food and beverage, as an alternative to single-use plastic. Without a coherent management system, however, these products risk ending up in landfill — wasting their potential and even contaminating the conventional recycling stream.

International experience suggests that, for compostable packaging to deliver its full value, Viet Nam's EPR policy could consider the following:

Building sorting and processing infrastructure: EPR can become the source of finance for investment in organic waste treatment plants and industrial composting. Infrastructure for this is currently limited in Viet Nam. Contributions from producers of compostable packaging should be used to build and operate these facilities rather than flowing only into a general recycling support fund.
Setting clear standards and lists: Viet Nam needs clear national standards for "compostable packaging", similar to the ASTM standards used in the United States. This distinguishes compliant products from ordinary "fragmentable" plastics. On that basis, regulators can publish a list of compostable materials recognised under the EPR framework, creating transparency for producers and consumers alike³.
Public education: a meaningful share of the EPR fund should go to educating the public on how to identify, sort and dispose of compostable packaging correctly. Avoiding confusion between compostable packaging and ordinary plastic packaging is key to processing both material streams effectively⁴.
Using eco-modulation: once the system matures, Viet Nam can apply fee modulation, under which producers using certified and correctly labelled compostable packaging pay a lower EPR contribution. This is a powerful economic incentive for businesses to move to more sustainable packaging⁵.

Overall, Viet Nam's EPR roadmap is at an early stage with plenty of room to develop. Studying and integrating rules on compostable packaging now would help the country not only tackle plastic waste but also capture the considerable benefits of turning food waste and organic packaging into valuable resources, contributing to a genuinely comprehensive circular economy.

The Future of Sustainable Packaging: Compostability and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the United States