What Americans Want From Packaging Waste Policy

For decades, efforts to address plastic waste have often centered on two goals: improving recycling rates and encouraging consumer behavior change/action. Those efforts matter. Recycling can recover valuable materials and keep more packaging out of landfills and the environment.

Today's packaging waste challenge has outgrown the systems built to manage it. Those systems have not kept pace with the growing volume of packaging or the increasing complexity of packaging design. In this post, we look at new public opinion research from The Harris Poll to better understand what Americans want from packaging waste policy and why those expectations point to the need for a system designed to deliver better outcomes.

The Harris Poll findings suggest Americans are judging success less by effort and more by results they can see: less waste, clearer rules, better access and systems that are easier to use. That matters for policymakers, because the next phase of packaging waste policy will need to do more than improve recycling rates or shift costs. It will need to reduce material use, make reuse and refill more practical, keep valuable materials in circulation longer and better reflect the realities of today's packaging and products.

People Want Better Outcomes, Not Just Better Recycling

The survey tells a simple story: Americans do not see the current system as good enough, but they have not given up on recycling. They want a system that does more than collect material after it is used/discarded.

When asked about the current recycling system, six in ten Americans said it is either struggling to keep pace with today's packaging and waste streams or requires major redesign. Only a small minority believe the system is working well and needs only minor improvements.

These views are widely shared. Majorities of Republicans (54%), Democrats (64%) and Independents (61%) believe the current system is struggling to keep pace or requires substantial improvement. Similar results showed up across red, blue and purple states, suggesting this is not just a partisan concern, and that across political lines, people see a system that needs to work better.

The same desire for better outcomes shows up in support for reuse and refill. Nearly nine in ten Americans (89%) said they would prefer products that can be reused or refilled rather than disposed of after a single use. Support remained consistently high across political affiliations, including Republicans (88%), Democrats (92%) and Independents (88%), suggesting that interest in reducing waste at its source extends well beyond traditional environmental constituencies.

These responses do not suggest a loss of confidence in recycling itself. Instead, they point to growing expectations for what a more modern circular system should be able to achieve.

Americans also appear to see stronger recycling and reuse systems as part of a broader economic opportunity. More than nine in ten respondents agreed that improving recycling and reuse systems could strengthen U.S. manufacturing, supply chains and local economies. Support remained consistently high among Republicans (89%), Democrats (92%) and Independents (88%).

They also do not appear to expect consumers to solve the challenge alone. Ninety percent agreed that reducing packaging waste requires consumers, companies and government working together, and 91% agreed that companies should help pay for efforts to reduce packaging waste. That points to a practical view of shared responsibility: consumers need systems they can use, companies need to help fund and improve those systems and government has a role in setting clearer rules.

People May Not Know the EPR Acronym, But They Support the Principles

One of the most useful findings for policymakers is about Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR. Awareness of the term itself was low, at 11%, but after respondents were described an EPR policy that would require producers to help fund and/or manage collection, recycling, reuse and disposal of the products and packaging they put on the market, support rose to 87%.

In other words, Americans may not know the term EPR, but they support many of the principles behind it: shared responsibility, producer accountability, clearer standards, stronger infrastructure and measurable outcomes.

For policymakers, that changes the starting point. The public may not be asking for national EPR by name, but the survey suggests they support many of the outcomes a well-designed federal EPR policy is meant to deliver.

People Want Simpler, More Consistent Systems

The survey also suggests Americans care about whether the system is simple enough to work.

Consistency is where the public response is especially clear. Nearly seven in ten respondents (69%) said they support creating more consistent national standards for recycling and packaging, compared with 22% who preferred maintaining different approaches across states. Ninety-two percent also agreed that national standards could improve efficiency.

At first glance, this may seem like a question about policy structure. In practice, it points to something more basic: people want systems that are easier to understand, easier to navigate and more effective at delivering results.

For consumers, inconsistency shows up as confusion: different labels, different bin rules and different answers depending on where they live. For businesses, the patchwork shows up as complexity: different standards, reporting requirements and compliance systems across markets. Local differences often reflect real community needs. But when every system works differently, it becomes harder for people to participate and harder for companies to invest in solutions that can scale.

The Harris Poll findings suggest Americans recognize that consistency is not just about convenience. It can shape investment. Ninety-one percent agreed companies are more likely to invest in recycling and packaging improvements when regulations are more consistent across states. Support for consistency and efficiency remained strong across red, blue and purple states, and among urban, suburban and rural communities.

That agreement matters because it suggests packaging waste is not inherently a partisan issue. Across political affiliations, states and community types, Americans support many of the same practical principles: less waste, more reuse and refill, shared responsibility, producer accountability and greater national consistency. The takeaway is not simply that people want the current system to work better. It is that many of the core ideas behind well-designed federal EPR have broad public support.

Public Support is Only Part of the Story

Polling can show what people want, but it cannot answer the economic question on its own. Policymakers also have to consider what it would take to build a better system, what it could cost and what benefits it could create.

Packaging waste policy affects more than what goes in the bin. It shapes local budgets, access to recycling, business investment, packaging design, jobs, infrastructure and the everyday experience people have when they try to recycle or reuse something.

The picture from the Harris survey is clear: Americans want less waste, clearer rules and better results. They support shared responsibility, producer accountability and more consistent standards that could improve efficiency.

For policymakers, the takeaway is not simply that support for national EPR framework is strong once the federal policy is explained. It is that people support the kind of system federal EPR is designed to help build.

But support alone does not guarantee success. The question is not whether any federal EPR policy will automatically deliver these outcomes. It is how to design one that can.

That points to the need for a harmonized national framework: clear goals, common definitions, consistent reporting, accountability for results and incentives that reward better packaging choices. National consistency does not have to erase local needs. A stronger system can provide clearer rules of the road while still allowing states and communities to invest in infrastructure and programs that fit their realities.

The Harris findings show what people are asking for. The next question is what it would take to build that kind of system, and what could communities, businesses and local economies gain if it is built well? We explore that question next through a new RTI International economic analysis of what a stronger packaging waste system could mean for infrastructure, local governments, jobs and communities.