From Border to Shelf — Harmonized.Evidenced.
64+ jurisdictions. 3 federal systems. No unified view. We build the research infrastructure that generates evidence for policy — and the practical tools that help every member navigate compliance today.
Jurisdictions with distinct packaging rules
Federal systems (CA, US, MX) with no unified view
Separate systems per member to meet compliance
You Can’t Export What You Can’t Package
Fresh produce packaging must simultaneously comply with state- and provincial-level EPR policies, federal food safety and food contact regulations, and a growing array of environmental and material requirements. These regimes are developed independently, pursue different objectives, and apply inconsistent definitions, criteria, timelines, and enforcement.
The result is regulatory dissonance: differing, overlapping, or competing requirements across jurisdictions that cannot be easily reconciled within a single packaging system or supply chain. For fresh produce, this is uniquely acute — packaging must protect a biological product from spoilage while meeting EPR material mandates that may conflict with food contact approvals and barrier performance.
This creates what we call orthogonal dissonance: EPR mandates push packaging toward recycled content and compostable materials, while food contact regulations demand virgin-grade barrier properties and contamination thresholds. A packaging design optimized for California’s SB 54 recycled content targets may fail food contact approval in Canada. The regulatory objectives themselves are at cross-purposes — the same material choice cannot satisfy both.
The research that characterizes this problem — and the tools that help members navigate it — are the same infrastructure.
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
No comprehensive, system-level understanding exists of how interacting packaging regulations affect fresh produce trade, packaging decisions, and supply chain resilience. This platform generates the evidence that powers research and advocacy — while giving every member the tools to navigate their own compliance landscape.
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
Three Dimensions of Dissonance
Regulatory dissonance operates on three axes. The first two create friction across geography. The third creates friction across purpose — where the regulatory objectives themselves are irreconcilable.
Vertical Dissonance
Layers of government
Federal, provincial/state, and municipal rules stack on top of each other. A single shipment may trigger 3+ layers of packaging regulation within the same jurisdiction.
Horizontal Dissonance
Across jurisdictions
Neighboring jurisdictions with incompatible rules create friction at every border crossing. BC→WA, ON→NY, any→CA.
Orthogonal Dissonance
Competing regulatory objectives
EPR mandates push packaging toward recycled content and compostable materials. Food contact regulations demand virgin-grade barrier properties. These objectives are fundamentally at cross-purposes — the same material choice cannot optimize for both.
EPR & Environmental Mandates
- Recycled content targets (SB 54: 65% by 2032)
- Source reduction & material elimination
- Compostability & recyclability requirements
- Eco-modulated fees penalizing virgin materials
Food Contact & Safety Requirements
- Virgin-grade barrier properties for perishables
- FDA 21 CFR / Health Canada food contact approval
- Migration & contamination thresholds
- Modified atmosphere packaging integrity
Fresh produce sits at the center of this conflict. Packaging optimized for end-of-life compliance may fail to prevent the spoilage it was designed to stop.
“Existing analyses examine EPR, food safety, and recycled content mandates in isolation — without evaluating how they intersect in practice.”
Policymakers lack evidence on where objectives conflict. Industry lacks clarity on compliance pathways. This platform connects those frameworks — generating research-grade evidence for policy, and practical intelligence for every member.
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 Member Tools
Each phase generates research evidence and delivers practical tools. The evidence powers CPMA’s advocacy and Daniel’s research questions. The tools help every member navigate compliance. Both from the same infrastructure.
Regulatory Mapping
Phase 1
Searchable tools covering 64+ jurisdictions: EPR requirements, food contact rules, recycled content mandates, labeling and material restrictions. Usable by every member to assess their compliance landscape.
Trade Corridor Tools
Phase 2
Model your specific cross-border routes. See which regulations stack on the Pacific (BC-WA-CA) and Eastern (ON-NY) corridors. Identify where packaging designs conflict across jurisdictions.
Compliance Cost Modeling
Phase 3
Quantify the cumulative burden: EPR fees, reporting hours, food loss from packaging substitution, and investment uncertainty. Tools for members to build their own business cases.
Harmonization Intelligence
Phase 4
Evidence-based tools for CPMA advocacy: where regulatory objectives conflict, where harmonization creates value, and what a coordinated North American framework could look like.
Regulatory Mapping
Searchable tools covering 64+ jurisdictions: EPR requirements, food contact rules, recycled content mandates, labeling and material restrictions. Usable by every member to assess their compliance landscape.
Trade Corridor Tools
Model your specific cross-border routes. See which regulations stack on the Pacific (BC-WA-CA) and Eastern (ON-NY) corridors. Identify where packaging designs conflict across jurisdictions.
Compliance Cost Modeling
Quantify the cumulative burden: EPR fees, reporting hours, food loss from packaging substitution, and investment uncertainty. Tools for members to build their own business cases.
Harmonization Intelligence
Evidence-based tools for CPMA advocacy: where regulatory objectives conflict, where harmonization creates value, and what a coordinated North American framework could look like.
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
Research Infrastructure. Member Tools. Same Platform.
The same platform that generates evidence for Daniel’s research questions gives every CPMA member practical compliance tools. We build the infrastructure — CPMA drives the research agenda, and members use it to navigate their regulatory landscape daily.
Regulatory mapping. Compliance intelligence. Trade corridor analysis. Exportable reports. Evidence for policy. Tools for members. One platform.