Aquapak, which specialises in developing high performance, environmentally safe materials that can do the job of conventional flexible plastics and improve recycling efficiency, is warning that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which came into effect in October 2025, could increase the annual grocery bill for the average family of four in the UK by £312 per year1.

EPR is regulation designed to make the producer (or brand owner or importer) financially and operationally responsible for the packaging they put on the market and for the waste and recycling that follows, taking it away from local authorities and taxpayers. Now, brand owners will pay a fee per tonne, which varies depending on the material category. A red, amber, green (RAG) fee system defined under the Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) will also be introduced. In short, the more recyclable the packaging, the lower the fee. The less recyclable, the higher the fee.

In theory, this should encourage smarter packaging design, lighter materials, and less wasteful formats while easing pressure on public budgets. However, Aquapak has highlighted a lack of clarity because of definition changes, guidance shifts, and “illustrative fees” for those developing new, more sustainable solutions, such as converters, material innovators, and coating suppliers.

DEFRA’s definition is compositional rather than performance based. For example, under the current EPR definitions, “paper” is packaging made from at least 95% fibre by weight. If a pack contains more than 5% non-fibre material, it’s automatically pushed into a new category called “fibre composites” which commands higher fees than the plastic packaging it is supposed to replace.

Mark Lapping, Chief Executive Officer, Aquapak, said:

“The intention of EPR is to make more producers and brands use more recyclable packaging. However, a lack of clarity and flawed definitions means that instead of pushing for better design, some are already choosing to simply absorb the fees and pass the cost on to consumers – even though the consumer is already paying council tax towards the cost of disposal."

“A cost which was supposed to be a tax on the brand and instead the consumer will be paying for it twice at a time when the cost of living is still high. That’s hardly the outcome anyone wanted when EPR was first proposed.”