Alongside EPR schemes, EU regulation is also influencing packaging developments. The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), for example, focuses on packaging sustainability, recyclability and material use. As these requirements take effect, businesses that fail to comply could face restrictions on selling into important markets.

Given that most food packaging is single use, the introduction of EPR and PPWR has had a significant impact on the sector – albeit from different starting points. Many of the food giants were already committed to sustainability and fully prepared to meet the new regulatory framework. Many SMEs on the other hand were arguably less ready and more reliant on their packaging suppliers to make the necessary provisions. 

Every company, irrespective of size, must get to grips with the legislation. Failure to provide evidence - in the form of purchased Packaging Waste Recycling Notes (PRNs) and Packaging Waste Export Recycling Notes (PERNs) - that an equivalent weight of packaging has been recycled is likely to result in a double financial hit; a fine for not submitting the relevant data plus a back dated bill for all the packaged goods supplied and handled from the introduction of the scheme. 

There’s also an additional annual fee that companies must pay to the environmental regulator, depending on their turnover and total weight of packaging handled. EPR is also separate to the plastic taxes currently in force and refers to all packaging materials, renewable or otherwise. Then there are the variances between jurisdictions. In the UK, for instance, uncertainty around when the ERP fees take effect and even a potential pause due to the recent change in Government creates further headaches for manufacturers.

So it’s perhaps not surprising that some of these new costs may eventually be passed on to the consumer. If the supermarkets and food manufactures don’t absorb this cost, over a pound a week could be added to the average shopping basket according to some calculations. Such an increase is understandably cause for concern, particularly given today’s volatile inflation and unpredictable cost of living resulting from global political instability and climate change. That said, there are ways to mitigate the impact of EPR and cope with the introduction of a more rigid regulatory environment.

Managing change

Using more lightweight materials, rather than rigid glass bottles and jars or metal cans and tins, is one option that’s also highly relevant for companies handling close to the EPR threshold of 500 tonnes of packaging per year. Although ‘light weighting’ has long been an effective strategy for reducing fuel and transport costs, it’s now taken on even greater significance in light of PRN costs and the need to reduce carbon footprint. 

Switching to recycled and biodegradable packaging materials is another important consideration. They are charged at a lower PRN rate than plastic which, as you would expect, is at the top of a rapidly rising price scale – again, underlining the fact that the EPR framework rewards sustainable packaging choices.

In practical terms, this means that a small beverage manufacturer, with a turnover exceeding £1 million, could potentially reduce annual packaging tonnage to a level that avoids EPR altogether. And if at least 30% of recycled plastic is used, it could also be exempt from the plastic tax.

What this means is that the current legislative drive towards greater sustainability has added a new layer of complexity to food packaging strategies. It’s also challenging traditional packaging formats and inspiring new innovations in the form of eco-friendly materials, technologies and formats. And it means that RSSL’s comprehensive analytical testing expertise is more important and in demand than ever.

Why? Because changing product packaging to use less, thinner or more sustainable packaging materials can create a number of issues. Barrier properties and shelf life, along with pack integrity, robustness and seal strength can all change. Any unaccounted changes can compromise the function of packaging during production, transit, storage and use. So, every aspect must be thoroughly assessed using relevant analytical methods that consider both product and packaging. If not, quality standards may not be maintained; risking consumer complaints and even damaging brand reputation via a food safety issue. 

Putting packaging to the test

For instance, switching to a new compostable flexible film is likely to bring different barrier properties that could affect the taste, appearance or odour as well as shelf-life and safety of the product it houses. Only by measuring the oxygen and moisture transmission rate through the film can we be show that it provides the optimal barrier protection during shelf life. 

It’s also vital that analytical testing is carried out under conditions that replicate the journey through the entire supply chain. This is particularly important when it comes to biodegradable materials which, by their very nature and purpose, are expected to have a finite lifespan – but must still perform their functional role until the end of the product’s shelf life. By aging the materials and packaging at temperatures and humidity that mimic different environments, we can evaluate their mechanical and barrier properties to ensure these expectations are met.

These tests should also consider every element of the new packaging concept. Don’t forget, EPR legislation applies to even the smallest packaging components, from caps, strapping and tapes to adhesives, closures and tethers. So the same rules apply. Mechanical testing will show if the sustainable alternatives function in the same way, while more expensive haptic consumer studies can verify their suitability in use.

EU legislation introduced in 2024 requiring caps of non-returnable plastic bottles to remain tethered even after opening also created a new testing requirement; to evaluate whether the cap connection is strong enough to remain in place through product use, disposal and the recycling chain. Again, RSSL can respond to this with tailored testing methods that will confirm whether the force needed to break the tether is sufficient for compliance purposes. 

Thinking outside the box

Despite making progress towards greener packaging, much still needs to be done to achieve the goal of true circularity; where recycled materials are used for the same purpose for which they were originally used an infinite number of times.

One of the biggest issues is that the quality and properties of recycled materials degrade over time. There are also concerns about potentially harmful impurities making their way into the recycling process and migrating into food. At the same time, the materials themselves need to meet certain recyclability standards to ensure they don’t contaminate waste streams.

Targeted analytical testing can help answer these - and many other - important questions. It plays a fundamental role in ensuring the quality of recycled materials and packaging remains fit for purpose. And takes you one step closer to a successful sustainable switch.