From Border to Shelf — Harmonized.Evidenced.
64+ jurisdictions. 3 federal systems. CPMA and its members navigate this complexity every day. Together, we can build the evidence base that makes it easier for everyone.
Jurisdictions with distinct packaging rules
Federal systems (CA, US, MX) navigating independently
Unified cross-border regulatory evidence base
You Can't Export What You Can't Package
A BC blueberry exporter shipping to California crosses 3+ distinct regulatory regimes. Each jurisdiction has its own packaging requirements, EPR scheme, and labeling rules.
North America doesn't yet have a unified regulatory map for produce packaging. 64+ jurisdictions operate independently. Exporters are navigating this complexity every day — and doing it well — but the landscape is getting harder to keep up with.
Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape is accelerating. California's SB 54, provincial EPR expansion, EU PPWR pressure on CUSMA compliance — the complexity is compounding, not converging.
The opportunity: connect what everyone is already doing.
Regulatory Timeline
EPR Fragmentation
Extended Producer Responsibility schemes vary by province and state. A single exporter may face 10+ distinct compliance regimes for the same product.
CA SB 54 / Prop 65
California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act introduces the most comprehensive packaging requirements in North America.
EU PPWR
EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation sets the global harmonization benchmark — and a model for what North America can achieve.
The System-Level View
The core problem: no comprehensive, system-level understanding of regulatory dissonance in produce packaging exists across North America. This is the evidence infrastructure CPMA and ALDC are building together.
Regulatory Ecosystem Map
Click any node to explore its role in the regulatory ecosystem
Federal Systems
Canada
United States
MexicoKey Jurisdictions
BC
ON
QC
CA
WA
NYTrade Corridors
The highest-friction produce trade routes in North America
64+ jurisdictions — one shared evidence base
Two Dimensions of Dissonance
Regulatory dissonance operates on two axes — both create friction, but in fundamentally different ways.
Vertical Dissonance
Federal, provincial/state, and municipal rules stack on top of each other. A single shipment may trigger 3+ layers of packaging regulation.
Horizontal Dissonance
Neighboring jurisdictions with incompatible rules create friction at every border crossing. BC→WA, ON→NY, any→CA.
“The comprehensive, system-level understanding that doesn't exist yet.”
This is what the evidence platform will provide — a unified view of regulatory dissonance across 64+ jurisdictions, 3 federal systems, and every trade corridor in between.
Who This Research Serves
Seven stakeholder groups are already navigating regulatory complexity with skill and determination. Shared research infrastructure amplifies what each group can do.
Exporters
Already managing multi-jurisdiction compliance for every cross-border shipment — a BC blueberry load bound for California crosses 3+ distinct regulatory regimes. The complexity is growing faster than any single team can track.
Trade corridor mapping that reveals exactly which regulatory layers apply to each origin-destination pair, with compliance cost projections.
Reduce time-to-market and rejection risk. Evidence-based advocacy for harmonization that directly reduces their compliance burden.
Packaging Manufacturers
Designing packaging for the most restrictive jurisdiction to maintain market access. Regulatory variation across 64+ regimes makes it harder to invest in innovation with confidence.
Regulatory landscape analysis that identifies convergence opportunities — where packaging innovation can satisfy multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
Design once, comply everywhere. Turn regulatory intelligence into competitive advantage and market expansion.
Small & Medium Enterprises
Doing remarkable work despite fragmented EPR schemes — but without dedicated regulatory teams, keeping pace with overlapping provincial, state, and federal requirements stretches resources thin.
Simplified compliance navigator that translates 64+ jurisdiction requirements into actionable, enterprise-specific guidance.
Level the playing field. Quantified evidence of cumulative regulatory burden supports advocacy for SME-proportional compliance frameworks.
Industry Associations (CPMA)
CPMA's advocacy has been powerful — but imagine what's possible with system-level evidence behind it. A unified view of the regulatory landscape would amplify the voice CPMA already has.
The evidence infrastructure CPMA needs: comprehensive regulatory mapping, trade impact analysis, and member burden quantification.
Become the authoritative voice on packaging regulatory harmonization in North America. Drive policy with evidence, not anecdotes.
Regulators & Policy Makers
Working hard within their mandates, but cross-border impacts are difficult to model without shared research infrastructure. Regulators want to make informed decisions — they just need better tools to see the full picture.
Impact modeling that shows how regulatory decisions in one jurisdiction create friction, diversion, or unintended consequences across the system.
Evidence-based policy design. Understand the system-level effects of regulatory decisions before implementation.
Researchers & Academics
Excellent jurisdiction-level research exists, but connecting findings across borders is difficult without shared infrastructure. System-level analysis requires a data foundation that spans the full regulatory landscape.
A structured evidence base that enables cross-jurisdictional analysis — the research infrastructure that doesn't exist yet.
Publish the definitive studies on North American packaging regulatory dissonance. Establish the field with comprehensive, novel datasets.
Investors & Capital Allocators
Regulatory variation across jurisdictions makes investment planning challenging. Capital allocators need clarity on which packaging innovations align with the direction regulators are heading.
Regulatory trajectory analysis and harmonization forecasting — the evidence base for informed capital allocation in packaging and fresh produce.
De-risk investment decisions with system-level regulatory intelligence. First-mover insight into which jurisdictions are converging vs. diverging.
From Mapping to Intelligence
A research platform in 4 phases — each building evidence to address the 6 research questions that define the regulatory dissonance problem.
Regulatory Mapping
Phase 1
Catalog 64+ jurisdiction requirements, EPR schemes, and packaging rules across Canada, the US, and Mexico into a searchable evidence base.
Trade Corridor Analysis
Phase 2
Model cross-border trade flows, identify friction points where regulatory dissonance disrupts commerce, and map trade diversion patterns.
Impact Modeling
Phase 3
Quantify the effects of regulatory fragmentation on food loss/waste, SME burden, and investment decisions using empirical evidence.
Harmonization Intelligence
Phase 4
Evidence-based recommendations for regulatory alignment. The system-level view that enables policy convergence across jurisdictions.
Regulatory Mapping
Catalog 64+ jurisdiction requirements, EPR schemes, and packaging rules across Canada, the US, and Mexico into a searchable evidence base.
Trade Corridor Analysis
Model cross-border trade flows, identify friction points where regulatory dissonance disrupts commerce, and map trade diversion patterns.
Impact Modeling
Quantify the effects of regulatory fragmentation on food loss/waste, SME burden, and investment decisions using empirical evidence.
Harmonization Intelligence
Evidence-based recommendations for regulatory alignment. The system-level view that enables policy convergence across jurisdictions.
Lessons from Harmonized Systems
These systems show that packaging regulatory harmonization is achievable. North America has the talent and infrastructure to get there too.
European Union (PPWR)
27Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation harmonizes rules across 27 member states. One compliance framework, one market — a model for what North America can build toward.
UK (pEPR)
2025Post-Brexit extended Producer Responsibility diverges from EU PPWR — a live case study in regulatory fragmentation between trading partners.
Australia (APCO)
100%Australian Packaging Covenant: voluntary national harmonization model. 100% reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging target by 2025.
Japan (JCPRA)
85%Containers and Packaging Recycling Association: industry-led national standard. 85% packaging recycling rate through unified compliance.
North America has no equivalent to the EU PPWR.
64+ jurisdictions, 3 federal systems, zero unified framework. This is the regulatory dissonance gap the research platform addresses.
Building on CPMA's Research Agenda
Six research questions, six hypotheses — each mapped to the platform phase that addresses it.
How does regulatory dissonance create trade friction?
Divergent packaging rules increase compliance costs and reduce cross-border trade volume.
How does EPR variability across jurisdictions affect SMEs?
SMEs bear disproportionate burden from fragmented EPR schemes.
Does regulatory fragmentation cause trade diversion?
Exporters route around high-regulation jurisdictions, distorting trade flows.
What is the relationship between packaging regulation and food loss/waste?
Overly restrictive packaging rules increase food loss in transit.
How does regulatory uncertainty affect capital investment?
Investors delay or redirect investment away from jurisdictions with unstable packaging regulation.
What is the cumulative burden on SMEs?
The aggregate effect of overlapping regulations exceeds the sum of individual requirements.
These are the questions CPMA is already asking. The evidence platform is designed to help answer them — together.
Funding the Evidence Base
Canada's grant ecosystem is uniquely aligned with regulatory research infrastructure. Multiple non-dilutive funding pathways support this work.
Research Grants
Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council — regulatory systems research
National Research Council — technology development for evidence platform
Trade & Agriculture
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada — trade facilitation and supply chain research
Trade Commissioner Service — market access and trade barrier reduction
Environment and Climate Change Canada — packaging waste reduction research
$5-9M over 3 years
Stacking strategy
75% government co-funding
Maximum eligible assistance
Start the Research Partnership
CPMA has the advocacy expertise and industry relationships. We have the research infrastructure and data engineering. Together, we can build the system-level understanding that serves the entire industry — as a research partnership, not a software purchase.