The four packaging and sustainability bills that could disrupt your compliance strategy

The opinions expressed by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.

In the race to shape U.S. circularity policy, states are the hare — there are seven relatively new state extended producer responsibility laws, for example — and federal legislation is the tortoise. But while congressional bills move slowly, their passage could reshape circularity regulations and supersede the growing patchwork of state circularity policies.  

Four live and largely bipartisan congressional bills offer insight into where federal packaging and circularity policy may be headed. Look closely, and you’ll see that each reflects legislators’ — and likely constituents’ — concerns around manufacturing, affordability and eroded consumer trust in the recycling system. The midterms will bring committee changes that will impact the bills’ future. But the legislation is worth watching to help build strategies for 2027 and beyond. 

The Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act  

What it would do: The act would create a voluntary federal framework for claims that packaging is recyclable, compostable or reusable. Third-party certification would be required to substantiate these claims. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a future Advisory Council, would issue guidance on substantiating packaging claims with third-party certification. The commission would then manage enforcement.  

Why it matters: The PACK Act would preempt state-level legislation and create a national framework. Instead of a patchwork of state labeling regulations, companies would follow a single framework under the act.  

Truth in Labeling Act  

What it would do: Create national definitions of the terms “recyclable,” “compostable,” “reusable” and “refillable,” and establish criteria for use of those terms on packaging, foodservice products and beverage containers. The act would not require third-party certification but does allow for qualified claims that meet specific criteria. 

Under the act, the EPA and FTC would consult on guidelines and standards for recyclable, compostable, reusable and refillable covered material criteria. The bill also outlines criteria around design; harmful components like inks and adhesives; collection; and responsible end markets — efforts to ensure materials that are collected for recycling are actually recycled in a way that minimizes environmental and human health harm. The FTC would enforce the law.   

Why it matters: Unlike the PACK Act, this law would not preempt state laws and would allow states to pass their own labeling laws. It would set the floor — not the ceiling — for claim regulations, and companies would still need to manage disparate state-by-state claim compliance.   

Recycled Materials Attribution Act (RMAA)

What it would do: Establish federal standards for recycled content marketing claims, such as “this package is made from 75 percent recycled content.” It would also require the FTC to update its Green Guides, which are intended to prevent deceptive or unfair environmental marketing claims and haven’t been updated since 2012.  

At present, companies must navigate a complex mix of federal and state labeling requirements, some of which preclude chemical recycling from being counted toward recycled content. The RMAA would cut through the noise by recognizing chemical recycling as a source for recycled content through third-party certified mass-balance accounting, which tracks recycled materials through production processes. Essentially, this bill would permit mass-balance accounting to substantiate claims of recycled content as long as an independent, third-party certification is used in conjunction with the claim. 

Why it matters: The RMAA would harmonize and regulate recycled content claims on a federal level. Across the country, companies would only need to manage compliance for their recycled content claims in accordance with the RMAA, since it would preempt state laws and block states from enforcing their own provisions. 

Cultivating Investment in Recycling and Circular Local Economies Act

What it would do: Increase investment in U.S. recycling infrastructure through federal tax incentives. The act would create a 30 percent investment tax credit to support modernized collection, sortation and processing infrastructure. The credit would be phased out over 10 years.

Why it matters: The act is comprehensive and ambitious in its goals. It aims to bolster domestic recycled material feedstock, strengthen manufacturing capacity and create jobs.  

The future of federal circularity policy 

These bills can be summarized by three approaches: consumer labeling, recycled content claims and recycling infrastructure. The three bills concerned with recyclability and recycled content claims take different approaches to one of the biggest questions in sustainability: Should federal policy replace the patchwork of state policies and establish minimum national standards, or allow states to continue forging their own unique paths?   

Right now, sustainability leaders are understandably focused on state implementation demands and extended producer responsibility deadlines, but the federal proposals quietly advancing through Congress could ultimately set the rules for consumer labeling, recycled-content claims and recycling infrastructure nationwide.  

The midterm elections won’t determine whether these bills become law, but some outcomes — like an overwhelming blue- or red-wave — could signal which vision of the circular economy has the best chance of crossing the finish line. The most effective organizations in the years ahead will begin preparing now by bringing packaging, sustainability, regulatory, legal, sourcing and government affairs teams together to monitor policy developments and assess potential business impacts.