DolceLoca

Campaigners want the government to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility laws, so companies producing non-recyclable packaging have to cover the cost of disposal. At present, the big guns sell plastic-wrapped food (then you have to pay via council tax to dispose of it).

The best way to reduce this is to act like many other councils, and simply refuse planning permission for more fast-food restaurants. McDonald’s has recently lost several cases, as councils are increasingly saying no to more fast food chains, as it means more litter.

One farmer had a great idea. Just like with speeding, if a family say visits a fast food drive-thru, their license number is clocked. Then if they throw the packaging out the window, they get hit with a fine through the post, just like if they had been driving too fast on the motorway.

If you don’t drop litter, why should your hard-earned cash be used as council tax, to clear up after those who make the litter and drop the litter? Extended Producer Responsibility laws are already coming into being in several US states, which encourages companies to make plastic-free packaging. The most recent states to pass such laws were Maryland and Washington (on the west coast).

What is Industry’s Response to EPR?

You can imagine. In translation, one could say ‘throwing toys out of the pram’. This is why England has dumbfoundedly delayed the upcoming deposit return scheme (where people get their money back, if they hand in used cans and bottles to vending machines).

It was full steam ahead, until England halted everything, by not agreeing to include glass, as it ‘was too difficult’. It hasn’t been difficult for Scandinavia, where some countries have been recycling glass bottles in such schemes for over 50 years.

ReThink Plastic reports that a coalition of lobbyists from the single-use packaging industry and some Italian MEPs are trying to water down laws. Yet in Rome, there are threats to kill wild boar, who are venturing into the city – due to littered trash, that they won’t help to stop.

The major supermarkets (and even McDonald’s) appear to be playing ball. All now threatened with this tax, are aiming to make all their packaging easy to recycle or compostable as soon as possible. It’s a shame it took this threat, for them to finally take the issue seriously.

To stop packaging pollution, we need a circular economy where we eliminate what we don’t need. Through EPR schemes, companies putting packaging on the market are required to pay for its collection, sorting, and recycling after use. Ellen Macarthur Foundation

Why Extended Producer Responsibility Laws Matter (and Why We Need Them Now)

A parcel arrives at your door. Inside, the item is fine, but it comes wrapped in layers of plastic, padded paper, and a glossy sleeve that looks recyclable but isn’t. Or think about a phone upgrade, where the old charger and cable sit in a drawer, then end up in the bin years later. Everyday stuff, yet it adds up fast.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is simple to define: laws that make producers pay for, and help organise, the collection and recycling of the products and packaging they put on the market.

That one shift changes a lot. It affects what councils can afford, what ends up as litter, and what packaging designers choose in the first place. This post explains what EPR is, why it matters, and what strong EPR laws should look like for people, councils, and businesses in the UK and beyond.

Extended Producer Responsibility in plain English

Right now, most waste costs land on the public. Councils run collections, sorting, and disposal, then households pay through council tax and charges. Producers may contribute in limited ways, but the core system still treats waste as a local clean-up job.

EPR laws flip that logic. They say: if a company puts packaging or a product on the market, it should help fund what happens after use. That includes collection, sorting, recycling, and sometimes litter clean-up too. In practice, EPR schemes often work through producer fees paid into a central system, which then funds waste services and sets rules.

EPR isn’t only about packaging. Versions of producer responsibility already apply, or can apply, to electronics (WEEE), batteries, tyres, and textiles. Each area has its own problems, yet the same principle holds: the people who choose materials and designs should share the end-of-life costs.

EPR also sits neatly with the waste hierarchy. Recycling matters, but the best outcome is to reduce waste first, then reuse, then recycle what remains. When fees reflect real end-of-life costs, producers get a reason to cut waste upstream, not just manage it downstream.

How waste disposal is unfair today

Councils pay for bins, vehicles, staff, contracts, and treatment. They also pay for dealing with fly-tipping and litter, plus the messy job of sorting recycling that includes the wrong items. Those bills don’t shrink just because household budgets are tight.

That’s where the fairness issue bites. Residents pay even when packaging is hard to recycle, or when products are designed for a short life. You can rinse and sort perfectly, yet the system may still struggle with what you’ve been sold.

Take multi-layer plastic pouches. They can keep food fresh, but they often combine materials that are hard to separate. Many local systems can’t process them, so they end up as residual waste. That means more cost for disposal, and more confusion for households.

The real benefits of strong EPR laws

EPR can sound like policy jargon, yet the outcomes are very practical. Strong schemes can mean cleaner streets, less waste, and a more stable recycling service. They can also reduce the awkward gap between what packaging claims and what local systems can actually deal with.

For households, the benefit is often indirect at first. You may not see a new bin overnight. Still, EPR can support clearer labels, more consistent collections, and less of the “can I put this in recycling?” guessing game.

For councils, the biggest gain is financial. If producers cover a fair share of costs, councils can protect core services. That matters when budgets are tight and contracts run for years.

For the environment, EPR works best when it shifts choices before waste exists. If it leads to less single-use packaging, more reuse, and fewer hard-to-recycle materials, the gains compound.

Less litter and landfill, because packaging changes

• Design follows incentives. If a producer pays the same fee for easy-to-recycle packaging as for awkward formats, nothing changes. However, when fees reflect the real cost of collection and sorting, companies start asking different questions.
• Can we remove a layer? Can we switch to one material? Can we avoid black plastics or glued labels that ruin recycling? Can we offer a refill option where it suits the product? Each change can reduce waste and make recycling work better.
• There’s also a climate angle that’s easy to grasp. Making new plastic and aluminium from scratch takes energy. So, when EPR helps increase recycling and cut material use, it can also help reduce emissions over time. It won’t solve climate change on its own, yet it can move the dial in the right direction.