New York legislators are advancing two Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposals that could reshape packaging practices for foodservice operators and distributors statewide. While both bills target packaging waste reduction and corporate accountability, their diverging provisions introduce distinct implications for compliance, reporting, and material use across the industry.
Foodservice businesses operating in or distributing to New York should assess how these legislative changes may impact packaging sourcing, labeling, and end-of-life management.
Overview Of The Proposed Bills
The two bills; one from Sen. Pete Harckham and Assemblymember Deborah Glick, and another from Sen. Lea Webb and Assemblymember Michaelle Solages, have been introduced with overlapping but structurally different EPR models. Both seek to establish producer-funded systems to reduce packaging waste and increase recycling, but they differ in scope, producer exemptions, and operational requirements.
For U.S. foodservice operators, particularly those distributing branded goods into New York, the bills outline new potential obligations:
Producer Definitions: Both proposals define “producers” to include brand owners and importers, potentially implicating private-label foodservice goods and restaurant chains sourcing out-of-state packaging.
Reporting & Labeling: The Harckham/Glick bill requires annual reporting and labeling to reflect recyclability and post-consumer content. Non-compliance could lead to product restrictions within the state.
Material Bans & Reduction Targets: Both bills would prohibit certain non-recyclable packaging materials and set material reduction targets, driving demand for more sustainable options.
Operators may need to collaborate more closely with packaging suppliers to ensure material specifications meet regulatory requirements, particularly for single-use packaging used in takeout and delivery formats.
Recyclability Criteria Under Scrutiny
A notable tension lies in how recyclability is defined. The Harckham/Glick bill mirrors New York City’s criteria, which requires curbside recyclability and a 60% recovery rate statewide. Webb/Solages propose a stricter definition based on a 75% recovery rate and end-market viability.
This distinction matters for operators using molded fiber, plastic film, or compostable materials that may not meet curbside collection standards, raising the likelihood of re-specifying packaging for compliance.
Operational Timeline & Industry Pushback
Neither bill has passed as of yet, but industry stakeholders are closely watching their trajectory. If enacted, implementation would roll out over several years, though registration and reporting mandates could begin as early as 2026.
The American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN) has advocated for a compromise approach that balances enforceability with supply chain flexibility. A hybrid model incorporating best practices from both bills may ultimately emerge, but foodservice operators should begin evaluating packaging inventories and supplier capabilities now.
With multiple states enacting or drafting EPR legislation, New York’s policy decisions are poised to influence national standards. For U.S. restaurant groups, packaging distributors, and professional buyers, these bills underscore a broader shift toward circularity and corporate responsibility in packaging. Preparing for these changes will require proactive engagement with packaging suppliers, sustainability teams, and legal advisors to avoid disruptions in supply chains and product offerings.
