Extended producer responsibility (EPR) has become one of the dominant policy frameworks shaping the future of packaging recycling in the United States. Since 2021, a growing number of states have adopted EPR laws for packaging, and 2026 will mark an important transition point as more programs move from statute to implementation with producer registration, reporting and fee payments coming due.
These laws are intended to generate new funding for the collection and processing of recyclables. When designed well, EPR can strengthen recycling systems; when designed poorly, it can raise costs and fail to deliver real environmental outcomes. That is why Plastics Industry Association supports only well-crafted EPR policies that are transparent, data-driven, cost-effective and aligned with real-world recycling infrastructure. We do not support systems that simply shift costs or ban plastic materials without improving recycling infrastructure.
EPR is fundamentally a supply-side instrument: It helps finance the systems that collect, sort and process recyclables. What it does not do—at least on its own—is ensure that the materials coming out of those systems are used to make new products. Without strong and predictable demand for recycled materials, investments in recycling infrastructure will never reach their full potential.
To build a truly circular plastics economy, we need policies that address both sides of the market: policies that expand supply and policies that create demand. That is where minimum recycled content (MRC) comes in.
Why demand matters
Today, virgin and recycled plastics often compete in the same markets. In many applications, virgin resin still has advantages: It offers more consistent mechanical properties, more predictable processing behavior, broader regulatory acceptance for sensitive uses like food contact and, in many cases, lower cost. When markets are volatile, recycled material is often the first thing squeezed out.
That volatility is one of the biggest barriers to investment. Recyclers and advanced recycling companies can build capacity, but if they cannot secure long-term purchasers for their products, capital stays on the sidelines. Equipment manufacturers, material suppliers and end users each face the same uncertainty.
MRC policies address that problem by establishing a demand floor. They require a certain percentage of a product or product category be made from recycled material, ensuring a reliable market for the output of recycling systems. In other words, MRC policies “pull” material through the system in the same way that EPR “pushes” material into it.
The limits of today’s MRC landscape
Unfortunately, the current U.S. MRC policy landscape is far too narrow to support a growing recycling industry.
According to Ameripen’s 2025 “U.S. Packaging Recycled Content Goals Analysis,” 24 MRC laws are active across nine states. All of them apply to packaging.
Packaging is an important market for plastic, but it is not the whole market. In fact, less than 30 percent of plastic resin produced in the United States goes into packaging. The majority goes into durable and semidurable applications, such as transportation, building and construction, electronics, appliances, consumer products, medical devices and industrial equipment.
Many of those applications have long product lifetimes, strict performance requirements or regulatory constraints that make the use of recycled content, especially mechanically recycled postconsumer material, more complex. But that does not mean they cannot use recycled material. It means we need thoughtful, technically informed policy to unlock those opportunities. The Plastics Industry Association encourages our downstream industry partners to set ambitious targets, and we will support those initiatives.
If policymakers expect recycled content mandates in packaging alone to support the entire recycling ecosystem, they are setting the system up to fail. The volumes simply are not there. A resilient circular economy requires broader participation across the plastics value chain.
What good MRC policy looks like
Not all recycled-content policies are created equal. When done poorly, MRC can create unintended consequences, distort markets or push companies toward impractical compliance pathways. When done well, it can drive real investment and innovation.
Several principles should guide any effective MRC policy framework.
First, policy should look beyond just postconsumer resin. The focus on postconsumer recycled plastic is understandable, but it is also an artifact of how plastics historically have been regulated. In paper, metals and glass, recycled content definitions include postconsumer and postindustrial material. Plastics should be treated the same way. Postindustrial recycled material represents real circularity and environmental benefit—and it often can be incorporated into products more easily and at greater scale.
Second, MRC targets should be flexible and achievable. Different polymers, product categories and applications have different technical realities. Food-contact packaging, medical devices and pressure-bearing automotive parts face very different constraints than flowerpots or traffic cones. Good policy recognizes those differences and allows compliance through averaging, trading or credit mechanisms rather than rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates.
Third, policy should be material- and technology-neutral. Advanced recycling technologies can produce recycled feedstocks that perform like virgin material and meet food-contact and high-performance requirements. MRC policy should allow all forms of recycled content—mechanical, physical and chemical—to count toward compliance as long as they meet the appropriate quality and environmental standards.
Fourth, recycled content policy should be aligned with EPR where it already exists. EPR programs already are creating reporting systems, producer registries and material tracking infrastructure. Those systems should be designed to support MRC compliance, as well, minimizing administrative burden while maximizing transparency.
A broader conversation for 2026
As EPR programs begin to take effect across the country, 2026 will be a pivotal year for U.S. recycling policy. This is the moment to have a more honest, comprehensive conversation about what it will take to make plastics circularity work at scale.
The Plastics Industry Association believes that conversation must include all sectors that use plastic, not just packaging. Transportation, building and construction, consumer products and electronics all represent enormous, untapped opportunities for recycled content. Many companies in these sectors are exploring how to incorporate more recycled material into their products, but they need regulatory frameworks that reflect technical reality and provide long-term certainty.
We welcome collaboration with downstream industry associations, brand owners, converters, recyclers and policy-makers to define reasonable, achievable recycled-content goals across these markets.
Seeing the whole system
Recycling is not a single policy, a single technology or a single program. It is a complex industrial system that spans collection, sorting, processing, manufacturing and end-use markets. When policy focuses on only one part of that system, it creates imbalances that ultimately slow progress.
Well-crafted EPR policy can strengthen the front end of the system by funding collection and processing. MRC requirements strengthen the back end of the system end by creating demand and pulling material through the value chain.Together, they create the conditions for investment, innovation and scale.
If we want a circular plastics economy that works in practice, we have to start designing policy with the full picture in mind.
Explore the Spring 2026 Plastics Recycling Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
