Atlantic Packaging

Atlantic Packaging is an 80-year-old, third generation-owned packaging company and a leader in sustainable packaging materials and packaging optimization. Atlantic’s president, Wes Carter, sits on the Advisory Board for California’s SB 54.

Recommendations for Policymakers Developing Circular Policy & EPR for Packaging Policies:

1. EPR laws Should Encourage and Account for Compostable Alternative Packaging Materials.
EPR programs should recognize and encourage compostable alternative materials—innovative packaging made from renewable sources like seaweed, bamboo, or upcycled food waste. These materials reduce dependence on fossil-based plastics and can be designed to break down safely at end of life. Most EPR laws so far have not accounted for them, leaving gaps in how they are categorized, incentivized, and handled after use. Material lists often lack a clear place for new products—for example, a seaweed-based film was once grouped with plastics it didn’t contain. Lists should instead include a category for verified compostable packaging. Programs should also reward innovation, directing some producer fees toward research and using eco-modulated fees (lower fees for better materials) to spur adoption. Finally, compostable materials only work if composting facilities can accept them; EPR laws should fund the expansion of composting infrastructure to make that possible. Including compostable materials in EPR design will drive innovation, strengthen local recycling and composting systems, and reduce plastic waste.

2. EPR frameworks should clearly distinguish between different types of packaging materials.
Not all packaging is the same, and EPR programs should reflect those differences. Business-to-business (B2B) packaging, like shipping films and protective wraps, moves through different recycling systems than business-to-consumer (B2C) packaging that households handle. Treating them the same can lead to inefficiencies and inaccurate recycling targets. EPR laws should also distinguish between food-contact and non-food packaging, since each poses unique safety and recycling challenges. For example, flexible films used for food often require multiple layers or coatings that make them hard to recycle, while similar non-food films can be designed for easier recovery. Recognizing these distinctions in material categories will help states set fairer fees, more realistic recovery goals, and clearer pathways for innovation in truly recyclable or compostable designs.

3. EPR laws should keep pathways open for new recycling technologies.
EPR programs should focus on clear outcomes, not rigid rules about which recycling methods are allowed. While mechanical recycling is the most established, new technologies are emerging that could improve material recovery and reduce waste. Lawmakers don’t need to endorse any one approach, but they shouldn’t exclude all non-mechanical options either. Instead, EPR laws should define the performance standards recycling systems must meet, such as recovery yield, safety, and the avoidance of harmful byproducts, and allow any technology that meets those benchmarks. This approach gives states flexibility to adopt innovation as it matures while maintaining accountability and environmental integrity. New recycling technologies are often grouped together under terms like “chemical recycling” and “advanced recycling,” but there are many technologies that fall within that umbrella, and each should be assessed on its own for its benefits and costs.