5 October, 2026

Extended Producer Responsibility: What Nobody Explains Properly

On 12 August 2026, the PPWR Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 entered into full force. From that date, Extended Producer Responsibility registration became mandatory for any company placing packaged products on European Union markets through online channels. And yet, most businesses selling into the EU through a marketplace still do not know whether they are registered, whether they should be, or what happens if they are not.

This article explains the essential mechanics of Extended Producer Responsibility, the specific traps that catch food supplement exporters and online sellers, and the timeline of obligations that extends to 2040.

Extended Producer Responsibility: the definition that changes everything

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a regulatory mechanism that places the cost of collecting and recycling packaging at the end of its life on those who introduce that packaging onto the market, rather than on municipal waste systems or end consumers.

In practice, this means that any company placing packaged products on the market in a given country must register with that country’s EPR scheme, declare the weight and type of packaging it places on the market each year, and pay a fee that funds the recycling infrastructure.

The PPWR Regulation extends and harmonises these obligations across all EU member states. What changed on 12 August 2026 is that the framework is now uniform: the same categories of obligated producers, the same types of packaging in scope, and the same enforcement baseline.

The intra-EU purchase trap

A company based in Germany selling food supplements online to consumers in Spain does not simply export a product. It also places packaging on the Spanish market. That packaging, once the product is consumed, enters the Spanish waste stream. Spain’s EPR scheme requires the German company to be registered and to declare that packaging.

This is not theoretical. Spanish market surveillance authorities can require any seller, regardless of where it is established, to demonstrate EPR compliance as a condition of continued market access. The obligation arises from the act of placing packaged goods on the market in Spain, not from being established there.

The same logic applies in France, Italy, Poland, and every other EU member state that operates an EPR scheme, which is all of them.

The packaging nobody declares: the shipping box

Most producers think of EPR obligations in terms of their primary packaging, the container that holds the product itself. For food supplements this might be a glass jar, a pouch, or a blister pack. But the scope of EPR extends to all functional packaging: primary, secondary, and transport packaging.

The cardboard box used to ship the order to the consumer is packaging. The paper filler, the protective wrap, the adhesive tape all count. For businesses shipping direct-to-consumer, the weight of transport packaging per order can easily exceed the weight of the primary product packaging.

This matters because EPR fees are calculated on packaging weight. A producer who registers only their product packaging and ignores shipping materials is under-declaring, which creates both a financial liability and a compliance risk.

One registration per country, not one for all of Europe

There is no single European EPR registration. A company selling food supplements in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands needs five separate registrations, five separate sets of declarations, and five separate fee payment relationships.

Each member state operates its own producer responsibility scheme. Some countries have one collective scheme, others have multiple competing schemes that producers can choose between. France’s Citeo, Germany’s dual system, Spain’s SIGRe, Ecoembes, and the new RPP register: these are all distinct systems with their own registration processes, declaration formats, and fee schedules.

The PPWR Regulation creates a common framework, but it does not eliminate the country-by-country nature of the obligation. What it does is standardise the categories of packaging in scope, the reporting periods, and the minimum requirements that national schemes must meet.

When the marketplace becomes a regulatory agent

Amazon, eBay, and other large online marketplaces operating in the EU are now required to verify that sellers using their platforms to reach EU consumers are EPR-registered before those sellers can sell packaging-containing products through their services.

This created a hard deadline for many businesses. You cannot sell packaged products through major EU marketplaces without demonstrating EPR compliance. The marketplace collects your registration numbers, checks their validity, and may suspend listings where compliance cannot be demonstrated.

For food supplement brands selling through Amazon EU, this means providing a valid RPP number for Spain, a LUCID number for Germany, a Citeo contract for France, and equivalent documentation for every other country where their products are listed. We have covered the Amazon EPR requirements in detail in a dedicated article: RAP number and Amazon Spain: Extended Producer Responsibility explained.

The exact moment the obligation arises

For businesses importing packaged goods into the EU from outside the EU, the obligation arises at customs clearance. The moment packaged goods clear customs and enter free circulation in an EU member state, the importer becomes the producer for EPR purposes in relation to that packaging.

If the importer is based outside the EU, they need an authorised representative established in the EU to fulfil the EPR registration and declaration obligations on their behalf. This is not optional. An EU-established authorised representative is a legal prerequisite for non-EU producers to place packaged goods on EU markets.

For businesses based within the EU selling cross-border to consumers in other member states, the obligation arises at the moment of sale: when a consumer in France buys from a Spanish online shop, the Spanish business becomes the producer for EPR purposes in France in respect of that order’s packaging.

The food supplements dilemma: high-barrier packaging under EPR

Food supplements present a specific packaging challenge under EPR that does not arise for most other consumer goods categories.

Many food supplements require packaging that protects the product from moisture, oxygen, and light. High-barrier packaging, multilayer laminates, and specialised closures are standard across the industry. These materials are often difficult or impossible to recycle using standard municipal recycling infrastructure.

Under EPR, the recyclability of packaging directly affects the fees a producer pays. Packaging that cannot be recycled through the standard collection and sorting infrastructure attracts higher fees in most EPR schemes, because the producer is contributing to a waste stream that the recycling system cannot process efficiently.

This creates a genuine tension for food supplement producers. The packaging that protects product integrity and safety is often the packaging that performs worst under EPR fee calculations. Switching to more recyclable alternatives requires stability testing, shelf-life studies, and potentially reformulation, all of which take time and money.

The practical answer is not to delay registration while waiting for packaging decisions to resolve. EPR registration is required now, based on current packaging. The fee implications of current packaging choices can be quantified. And the roadmap for packaging improvement, where one exists, can be built in parallel with compliance.

EPR retroactivity and what it can cost

EPR obligations in most EU member states have existed for years. Spain introduced its RPP register in 2023. Germany’s dual system has been mandatory since 2019. France introduced its Citeo obligation in 2020.

This means that a business that started selling packaged goods into Germany in 2021 without registering has been non-compliant for several years. Most EPR enforcement frameworks allow national authorities to pursue compliance claims retroactively for up to five years.

The financial exposure from retrospective EPR non-compliance has two components. First, the unpaid EPR fees for the years of non-registration, calculated on the packaging placed on the market in each of those years. Second, the administrative penalties that national authorities can impose for non-registration, which under the PPWR Regulation framework can reach up to 3.5 million euros depending on the member state and the severity and duration of the breach.

These are not theoretical risks. German authorities in particular have been active in enforcement against non-compliant online sellers, including sellers based in other EU member states and outside the EU.

The authorised representative uncertainty: Article 45.3 in limbo

Article 45.3 of the PPWR Regulation establishes the framework for authorised representatives for non-EU producers. As of October 2026, the implementing regulation that specifies exactly how the authorised representative system must operate across member states has not yet been finalised.

The European Commission published a proposal (COM(2025) 982) in June 2025, and the European Parliament is expected to vote on it in early 2027. Until the implementing regulation is adopted, the legal requirements for authorised representatives are governed by a combination of the PPWR framework and the existing national rules in each member state.

What this means in practice: non-EU businesses need an authorised representative for EPR purposes, but the exact scope of that representative’s liability and the specific documentation requirements differ between member states while the harmonised framework remains incomplete. A pragmatic approach is to select an authorised representative with experience in multiple EU member states and to build the representation relationship around the most demanding existing national requirements.

The classification change nobody anticipates: from commercial to consumer packaging

A significant number of food supplement businesses sell their products both to other businesses and directly to consumers. The EPR treatment of the same physical packaging can differ depending on who receives it.

Packaging delivered to another business as part of a commercial transaction may be classified as commercial or industrial packaging in some national EPR schemes, with different fee structures and declaration requirements from consumer packaging. When the same product and the same packaging is sold direct-to-consumer, it typically falls under household packaging rules.

For businesses operating mixed B2B and DTC channels, the split between commercial and household packaging needs to be tracked and declared separately. Applying a single packaging declaration methodology across all sales channels without accounting for this distinction is a common source of under-declaration.

What is coming: the obligation calendar to 2040

The PPWR Regulation sets a long-term trajectory of increasing packaging requirements that extends to 2040. The key milestones for food supplement producers include mandatory recycled content minimums in packaging from 2030, minimum recyclability design requirements applying from 2030 with more stringent thresholds from 2035, packaging reduction targets that limit the volume of packaging per unit of product, and a broad restriction on intentionally added PFAS in packaging materials by 2028.

The PFAS restriction is particularly significant for food supplement packaging. Certain high-barrier laminates and moisture-resistant coatings contain PFAS compounds. Producers who have not yet audited their packaging supply chain for PFAS content need to start that process now, because qualification of alternative materials takes time that the 2028 deadline does not leave room to waste.

From 2035, the minimum recyclability thresholds increase significantly, and member states may restrict the sale of packaging that does not meet the threshold. For food supplement packaging that currently relies on materials that are difficult to recycle, the 2035 deadline is the hard constraint against which packaging development roadmaps should be built.

The compliance process in Spain, step by step

Spain’s EPR framework for packaging operates through MITECO, the Ministry for Ecological Transition, and the SINIR registry. The compliance process for a food supplement business placing packaging on the Spanish market involves the following steps.

First, determine whether you are an obligated producer in Spain. Any natural or legal person established in Spain that places packaged goods on the Spanish market is obligated. Any business established outside Spain that sells packaged goods directly to consumers in Spain through distance selling is also obligated, and must act through an authorised representative established in Spain if it has no Spanish establishment.

Second, classify your packaging. Identify each type of packaging placed on the Spanish market: primary packaging in contact with the product, secondary packaging grouping primary units, and transport packaging. Determine the material composition and weight of each packaging type. This data feeds both your RPP registration and your annual declarations.

Third, register in the RPP (Registro de Productores de Productos). This is the Spanish national producer registry. Registration provides your RPP number, which is required by marketplaces operating in Spain and may be requested by the Spanish market surveillance authority.

Fourth, join an authorised collective scheme (SCRAP, in Spanish). Spain requires obligated producers to either operate an individual take-back system or adhere to a collective scheme. In practice, virtually all businesses use a collective scheme. Ecoembes and SIGRe are the two main collective schemes for household packaging. Adhesion to a collective scheme involves signing a contract, declaring your packaging volumes, and paying the corresponding fee.

Fifth, submit annual packaging declarations. By 31 March of each year, you must declare the packaging placed on the Spanish market in the previous calendar year, through your collective scheme. The declaration requires the weight of each packaging type by material category.

Due diligence as a verification tool

For businesses acquiring food supplement brands, adding new product lines, or entering into distribution agreements, EPR compliance is a due diligence item that belongs in the same category as regulatory approvals and intellectual property.

An acquisition target that has been selling into five EU member states for three years without EPR registration carries a potential liability of three years of unpaid fees plus penalties across five jurisdictions. That liability does not disappear on acquisition: it transfers.

Distribution agreements should address EPR obligations explicitly. When a Spanish distributor buys products from a German manufacturer and sells them to Spanish consumers, the EPR obligation for the Spanish market sits with the Spanish distributor as the entity placing the product on the Spanish market. The contract needs to reflect this, and to specify who bears the cost of compliance.

A final note on the cost of waiting

The most consistent pattern in EPR enforcement across EU member states is that businesses that register voluntarily, even late, are treated significantly better than businesses that register only after enforcement action begins. Proactive registration demonstrates good faith. It also stops the clock on the accumulation of retrospective liability.

For food supplement businesses that are not yet registered in the EU member states where they sell, the cost of getting compliant now is a fraction of the cost of getting caught later. The registration fees and collective scheme contributions are quantifiable and predictable. The penalties for non-compliance are neither.