From FDA food-contact rules to California's SB 54 and the FTC's Green Guides: A Practical Compliance Overview for American brands navigating a fast-evolving regulatory landscape.
Packaging compliance in the United States has become significantly more complex over the past three years. Where previously the regulatory environment was relatively permissive compared to European counterparts, a wave of state-level legislation led by California and followed by New York, Oregon, and Colorado has created a patchwork of requirements that brands selling nationally must now navigate with care.
The consequence of getting this wrong is not theoretical. Brands have faced enforcement action, retailer delisting, and significant fines for non-compliant packaging claims and materials. This guide by Paknify covers the most important federal and state regulations currently in effect or coming into force, and what they mean practically for brands that print, source, or sell packaged products in the US market.
Federal Regulations: The FDA and FTC Frameworks
FDA food contact regulations
For any brand packaging food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, or dietary supplements, the FDA's food contact substance (FCS) regulations establish what materials may lawfully come into contact with consumable products. These regulations cover inks, coatings, adhesives, and base materials and they apply to both domestic manufacturers and imported packaging.
FDA 21 CFR Food Contact Materials
Governs all materials that contact food directly or indirectly. Requires that packaging materials be either Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) or covered by a Food Contact Notification (FCN). Inks and coatings used on food-facing surfaces must meet specific migration limits. Non-compliance can result in product recall and significant penalties.
FTC Green Guides
The Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides govern environmental marketing claims on packaging, including "recyclable," "compostable," "biodegradable," "recycled content," and "sustainable." These guides, most recently updated in 2012 with revisions expected, establish standards for when these claims can be made truthfully and without qualification.
FTC Green Guides 16 CFR Part 260
A "recyclable" claim requires that recycling facilities are available to a substantial majority of US consumers, typically interpreted as 60%+. "Compostable" claims must specify whether industrial or home composting is required. Unqualified "eco-friendly" or "green" claims are considered deceptive. Brands making unsubstantiated sustainability claims face FTC enforcement action and class-action exposure. "Putting 'recyclable' on packaging that isn't accepted by most US recycling programmes is not just misleading under FTC guidelines, it is an actionable deceptive practice."
State-Level Regulations: The New Compliance Frontier
While federal regulations set baseline requirements, the most significant recent changes in US packaging compliance have come at the state level. California's legislation has been the most impactful, but several other states are now following with similar frameworks.
California SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention
Requires that all single-use plastic packaging sold in California be recyclable or compostable by 2032, with interim milestones. Producers must register with CalRecycle and contribute to a producer responsibility organisation to fund recycling infrastructure. Brands that sell into California, including national brands, must comply regardless of where they are headquartered. Non-compliance penalties can reach $50,000 per day.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws
Colorado, Oregon, Maine, and Minnesota have all passed EPR legislation requiring packaging producers to fund and support end-of-life recycling infrastructure. While the specific requirements vary by state, the common thread is that brands are financially responsible for the recycling of their packaging, not just compliant in labelling it recyclable. EPR fees are calculated based on packaging material type, weight, and recyclability, creating a direct financial incentive to reduce packaging weight and shift to more recyclable materials.
EPR Packaging Laws CO, OR, ME, MN
Brands must register with state producer responsibility organisations, report annual packaging data (material type, weight, units sold), and pay fees that fund recycling infrastructure. Deadlines and fee structures vary by state. Most programmes launch full fee collection between 2026 and 2028. Early registration is strongly advisable to understand financial exposure.
New York Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act
New York's legislation, passed in 2023, establishes one of the most stringent EPR frameworks in the country. It requires covered producers' brands selling packaged goods in New York to reduce packaging by 50% by weight by 2040 compared to a 2023 baseline, and mandates that 80% of packaging be recyclable by 2032. The financial obligations under New York's programme are among the most significant of any state EPR law.
What This Means for Your Packaging Strategy
For US brands, the practical implication of this regulatory landscape is a multi-state compliance challenge that requires proactive management rather than reactive adjustment. Several immediate actions are advisable regardless of brand size or category.
First, audit current packaging materials against both FDA food-contact requirements (if applicable) and FTC Green Guides for any sustainability claims currently in use. Claims that cannot be substantiated should be removed before enforcement action creates the urgency to do so.
Second, assess EPR exposure. Brands selling in California, Colorado, Oregon, Maine, or Minnesota need to register with the relevant producer responsibility organisations and understand their fee obligations. The earlier this assessment is completed, the more time is available to reformulate packaging toward lower-fee material categories.
Third, build a packaging compliance roadmap. The trajectory of US packaging regulation is clearly toward greater producer responsibility, stronger sustainability claim standards, and broader geographic coverage. Brands that build compliance capacity now, with supplier certifications, material traceability, and recyclability documentation, are investing in infrastructure that will be required eventually and is advantageous now.
The Opportunity Inside the Compliance Challenge
Regulatory pressure, while genuinely complex to navigate, creates a competitive dynamic that favours brands with strong packaging operations. As compliance requirements raise the bar for all players in a category, the brands with certified sustainable supply chains, documented material traceability, and compliant claim frameworks gain credibility advantages that are difficult for less-prepared competitors to replicate quickly.
US packaging regulations are becoming more demanding. The brands that treat this as an operational opportunity rather than a compliance burden will find themselves better positioned with customers, retailers, and regulators than those who treat it as a problem to defer.
