The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) on Wednesday released its formal policy position on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws affecting fresh produce packaging, urging federal and state policymakers to design EPR programs that account for the critical role packaging plays in preventing food waste, ensuring compliance with federal food safety regulations, and maintaining consumer access to affordable fresh fruits and vegetables. 

“The release comes as the regulatory landscape intensifies,” IFPA said. 

Colorado producers began paying EPR fees in January 2026. Maine required registration and reporting by May 2026. Washington’s mandatory Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) deadline arrives in July 2026. California’s $500 million annual environmental mitigation fee program is set to begin in 2027, with a mandate that all packaging in the state be 100% recyclable or compostable by 2030. Seven U.S. states have passed EPR for packaging legislation, and 15 more have introduced similar bills since the start of 2024. 

“Fresh produce packaging is not discretionary. It is an essential tool for preventing food loss, meeting federal food safety requirements, and getting nutritious food to consumers,” said Dr. Max Teplitski, IFPA chief science officer. “EPR programs must be designed with these realities in mind, or they risk driving up costs, increasing food waste, and undermining the food security goals we all share.” 

Why Fresh Produce Is Uniquely Affected

IFPA’s position paper details how fresh produce supply chains operate on thin margins with highly perishable products, making packaging decisions fundamentally different from those in other consumer goods sectors. Packaging in the produce industry serves multiple critical functions: preserving and extending shelf life, preventing bruising, enabling traceability, ensuring compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and other federal regulations, and communicating essential information for dietary, cultural, and regulatory requirements including organic, Kosher, halal, and bioengineered food disclosures. 

“EPR fees and packaging mandates that ignore these realities could increase food loss and waste, disrupt domestic food distribution networks, and raise prices for consumers — including those in communities already facing limited access to fresh produce,” IFPA says. “EPR costs do not disappear; they migrate through the supply chain, ultimately landing at the retail shelf.”

Key Policy Principles

IFPA’s position identifies seven areas where EPR policy must be strengthened: 

• Performance-Based Food Waste Credits: EPR fees and eco-modulation should account for packaging that is known to reduce food loss and waste, recognizing that avoiding food waste often delivers greater environmental benefit than marginal reductions in packaging material. 
• Food Safety and Labeling Guardrails: Packaging required to comply with FSMA, USDA Organic standards, and bioengineered food disclosure requirements must be explicitly excluded from EPR fees. 
• Predictable Eco-Modulation: Fee-setting methodologies must be transparent, provide advance notice, and include caps on annual increases to enable long-term investment planning. Further, eco-modulation fees should not penalize novel types of sustainable packaging. 
• Recyclable Packaging Recognition: Nationally consistent definitions of recyclability are essential. Packaging that is technically recyclable should not be penalized simply because local collection infrastructure has not yet caught up. 
• Compostable Packaging Alignment: Certified compostable packaging, especially where it enables co-management of food waste through organics collection systems, should qualify for favorable treatment regardless of current local composting infrastructure availability. 
• Interstate Harmonization: Agricultural supply chains are inherently interstate. Fragmented state-by-state EPR requirements function as de facto national regulation without national coordination, increasing compliance costs and disrupting perishable supply chains. 
• Automation and Equipment Compatibility: Packaging redesigns must account for compatibility with existing high-speed packing equipment. Extended transition timelines are needed where operational changes require significant capital investment. 

What Produce Businesses Should Do Now 

IFPA encourages members to join others in the industry at this year’s Washington Conference from June 8-10.  Attendees will visit Congressional offices to educate policy makers and their teams on the impact of state-by-state EPR policies on the industry and consumers and advocate for federal guardrails on EPR.   

With compliance deadlines already underway, IFPA urges all members operating in U.S. markets to take immediate action: 

• Conduct a packaging data audit — know your materials, weights, and recyclability status by SKU. 
• Identify which states you sell into and confirm registration and reporting obligations. 
• Clarify internal accountability for EPR compliance across packaging, finance, regulatory, and procurement teams. 
• Evaluate PRO (Producer Responsibility Organization) registration requirements by state. 
• Begin scenario planning for how EPR fees will move through pricing and cost structures.