Major brands are adopting a cost-benefit approach to EPR compliance by strategically paying fees rather than immediately redesigning packaging for each state, while innovative biodegradable bacterial cellulose facemasks are emerging as a new medicine delivery platform requiring specialized protective packaging solutions.
- EPR compliance strategy: Large brands are choosing to pay EPR fees upfront rather than continuously redesign packages for different state regulations, which is more cost-effective until regulations harmonize.
- Bacterial cellulose masks: AIMPLAS is developing biodegradable, biobased facemasks that deliver active ingredients for sun exposure, wounds, ulcers, and prescription topicals—requiring multilayer, light-protective, moisture-barrier packaging.
- State harmonization efforts: Oregon, California, Maryland, and Minnesota are coordinating EPR reporting dates and definitions to reduce compliance burden on brands through centralized data hubs and AI-assisted software.
- Fee structure incentives: EPR systems use eco-modulation with bonuses for sustainable packaging and higher fees for less recyclable materials, encouraging long-term packaging portfolio changes while funding recycling infrastructure.
- Timeline reality: Compliance happens gradually, not overnight—large brands with established equipment and supply chains need time to adapt, similar to turning an aircraft carrier.
Derrick Teal: Hello, loyal subjects. I am Derrick Teal, king of ProFood World, and this is the End of the Line videocast, podcast—whatever you want to call it—where the editors of PMMI Media Group get together and talk about things that have happened in the past week.
As always, I am joined by Liz Cuneo, editor in chief of Healthcare Packaging; Sean Riley, editor of OEM; and Matt Reynolds, editor of Packaging World.
Hello, subjects.
Liz Cuneo: Hello, hello. Happy Halloween!
Sean Riley: Hello, my lord.
Derrick Teal: Exactly. For those of you who don’t understand why I’m acting so strange—more strange than usual—it is Halloween tomorrow. I know you’ll be seeing or hearing this after Halloween, but it’s currently October 30 when we’re recording.
For people in podcast land, I’m wearing a crown and a cape. A fur-lined cape, of course. It’s still chilly here in Michigan.
Liz, you have something mask-related, I guess, in the spirit of Halloween.
Liz Cuneo: Yes, but not Halloween masks, per se.
I did an interview with AIMPLAS. It’s a plastics technology center, and they’re investigating the potential of using bacterial cellulose to develop facial masks.
If you picture the face masks that go right over your skin, these can act as carriers for active ingredients. Right now, you might think of them as hydrating or plumping, but they’re exploring this specific material for skin after sun exposure, wounds, or ulcers. The opportunities are pretty broad when talking about prescription topicals.
It’s an interesting trend—a different delivery method, if you will, for medicine on the face.
I reached out to them to ask about the implications for packaging, and we talked about what that might have to look like. The masks would have to be kept moist, protected from light, and free from contamination.
It’s a pretty interesting interview and article that will be on our site next week, which is November. It’s crazy to think how fast the year is going by.
It’s exciting to see new ways of applying medicine to the skin, moving beyond an ointment or cream and getting into a mask that adheres to the skin and keeps the medicine there for the full length of time you’d want.
The applications are really broad, from sun exposure to wounds, skin ulcers, the beauty and cosmetics industry, and potentially topical steroids and prescriptions.
It’s fun to see a different medicine delivery platform in our space that also dips its toe into cosmetics, which I appreciate.
Matt Reynolds: I’ve seen a few of these eye masks in our own bathroom a few doors down. They look like they’re in flexible packaging—flow-wrap packaging that’s not transparent—so probably similar in terms of avoiding light and maintaining moisture.
I haven’t opened one myself. I’d have to look at it, but I assume there’s probably a multilayer structure to provide a moisture barrier, and probably an opaque or printed surface to keep light out as well.
Are these mostly flow-wrap, or could they do anything with it as long as it’s flexible packaging that keeps the moisture in?
Liz Cuneo: What you’ve seen is the very flat, thin pouch that tears open, right?
What’s interesting is that this bacterial cellulose is an innovative, biobased material. Cellulose is an organic polymer, so the masks are biodegradable and biobased. But when we start talking about packaging, as you mentioned, it’s likely going to have to be a multilayer structure. I don’t want to say that for sure, but you get into what that looks like—maybe a metallized layer—to keep the product secure and protected from contamination, light, oxygen, and all those things.
It’s interesting to see. But yes, that’s the packaging you have in the bathroom.
Matt Reynolds: Okay. I just need to start using it. You’re talking about sun exposure—between Sean, Derrick, and me, we’re three sunburns just waiting to happen.
Liz Cuneo: In Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Matt Reynolds: The sun still comes out.
Derrick Teal: Yes, it does. I’ve got my lifetime supply of SPF Irish in the closet here because I need it more than most.
Sean, what informational tide have you brought for us today?
Sean Riley: “Informational tide.” I had a conversation with another interesting fellow like yourself. His name is Brent Lindberg. He’s the head of curiosity at Fuseneo. Matt knows him well from the Packaging Recycling Summit.
He’s big in the industry, helping brands put packaging and packaging lines together.
We were talking at PACK EXPO, and we’re going to hit on EPR again. It seems like we talk about it all the time, but it’s a topic that’s in the news, so it makes sense.
He deals with a lot of bigger brands that he didn’t mention by name, but he has a reputation that speaks for itself.
We went off on a sidebar about EPR and how these big brands are adapting to having to create different packages for states with different EPR rules and legislation, especially with different deadlines. It’s not like all the rules are going into place on November 1. They’re staggered.
What he said struck me, and I’m wondering if Matt has heard anything like this. He said some of the bigger brands are prepared to eat the fines, whether it’s for the first couple of states or until all the states come in.
Basically, they’re going to do it until it becomes too cost-prohibitive, rather than play whack-a-mole and constantly reinvent a package for each state.
It was something I hadn’t even thought of. I thought they would all have to adapt right away, but in this case, it might be more cost-effective not to jump all in with one and then have it not work in another.
Would that make sense, Matt? You’re our guru on this.
Matt Reynolds: I’m no guru, but from what I’ve heard, very little of this is altruism. It’s one big cost-benefit analysis.
The brands will be in compliance, but that can include using a material that might incur greater fees. They’ll pay those fees.
There’s no question that brands will, for the most part, be in compliance with these state rules and regulations. But it’s a cost-benefit analysis: Do they pay a little more for their current package, or work toward plastics reduction, for instance, in California?
On the EPR side, there is some leeway as well. They’re meeting the brands halfway—or at least they say they are—if there are good-faith efforts to make these changes.
They know that a big brand has a huge installed base of equipment that might not be able to run a slightly lighter-weight material. It’s like turning an aircraft carrier. It’s not going to happen all on January 1.
I’d also say there’s an effort among different states to coordinate and harmonize, as best they can, the dates and reporting dates.
Sean Riley: Okay, I didn’t realize that.
Matt Reynolds: It’s not there yet, but that was the initial outcry. Oregon was the first state to go live in 2025. I want to say June—or 2024, maybe. I’m mixing those up. No, it was 2025. Then California goes live on January 1.
There’s going to be some concerted effort down the road to harmonize the reporting dates so it’s not like every month they have to report to a new state.
There are also programs out there where the entire intention is that you input your packaging information: We use this much corrugated at this gauge, this much flexible packaging with this multilayer structure, and so on.
You put it all into one place, one hub, and these systems fill in the reporting data specific to each state.
You’re technically submitting a report for each state, but you’re putting all the information into one hub. Then these programs—some with AI-assisted software—take that central hub of packaging data, which you’re getting from your suppliers as a brand, and tailor it to the specific reporting needs for Oregon, Colorado, or California.
Wherever harmonization can happen, it’s going to happen.
That’s a lot of words to go back to your question, Sean. It’s all cost-benefit analysis. If it’s less expensive to pay some fees upfront and wait for things to become more harmonized so they can do it all at once, and the brands have the resources, they’ll do it.
They’ll still be in compliance. They’ll just be paying a fee instead of making the changes they’ll need long term to avoid continuously paying that fee.
I don’t think the long-term solution is just to pay the fee, but there may be—
Sean Riley: I didn’t realize that would put them in compliance. That’s what threw me. I thought if you’re paying a fine, that means you’re not following the rule, but part of being in compliance is paying the fine.
Matt Reynolds: It’s not really a fine. They’re fees, not fines. If you’re using a particular material, there’s a cost to use it.
The idea is that the fee for plastic or a multilayer plastic structure might be one amount, while the fee for that same product in paper or something recyclable might be lower.
You’re going to pay regardless. The incentive is to move brands over time into more recyclable packaging because it behooves them financially to do so. They don’t have to do that right away.
The other good news is that, with a lot of these EPR systems, the money isn’t going into somebody’s pocket. It’s going toward building better recycling infrastructure.
Some higher fees upfront are important in a lot of these programs because there are startup costs.
Ideally, five or 10 years from now, you’ll have less money needed because more infrastructure has been built and is being built. There will also be less money going in because brands, over time, will adjust their packaging portfolios to better align with what they call bonuses or maluses.
That’s part of the eco-modulation structure. If you’re moving toward more sustainable, recyclable packaging structures, the fees are lower. If you remain in less recyclable structures, the fees are higher.
It’s something that, over time, should correct itself. People call it taxes. I think it’s a fee structure that has a little bit of Adam Smith’s invisible hand in it, if you look closely.
I can imagine brands are looking at their bottom line and seeing what’s best for them right now. That might not necessarily mean making a huge switch overnight.
Sean Riley: If you’re not a guru, you’re guru-adjacent, because that was a lot of information.
Matt Reynolds: It’s different for every state, but I was immersed in it this week. I was here in Chicago at the University of Chicago for the Sustainable Packaging Innovation Forum, which covered very similar subject matter to our Packaging Recycling Summit.
It was a Chatham House Rule event, so I can’t report on who was there or attribute what was said, but I can say that EPR was a big subject.
Ian Welsh was the host and the manager behind the event. I spoke to him directly on the record. He’s the one person I could speak to on the record, and he thinks these are basically carrots and sticks. Over time, the bonuses and maluses are carrots and sticks.
It takes time to start these programs, and it takes time for brands to change, especially big brands with huge portfolios of different types of packaging.
The steepest part of the climb is happening right now. Hopefully, a lot of the puzzle pieces will click into place.
What’s interesting is that the states are talking to each other. As I mentioned, the laws—especially the early ones—came up separately, in a somewhat siloed sense. Oregon is different from California, and the definitions are different.
But even in the rulemaking phases, they talk to each other and try to make it simpler for brands to report, ideally just once.
More states are rolling out, including Maryland and Minnesota. I think Maine is having a little trouble getting things organized.
I suspect you’re going to see de facto harmonization and standardization because it will hum along a lot better that way.
Derrick Teal: Awesome. Thank you all so much for what you had to share. I think that’s going to do it for this episode of End of the Line.
Thanks, as always, to Liz, Sean, and Matt. I have things to share, but I’ll share those in the next episode because the king has duties he has to attend to.
Even though I’m going to take off the crown, I’m probably going to keep the cape because it’s pretty warm.
Thanks to you all for listening, and we’ll catch you next time.
