Re: AB 1789, OPPOSE The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) is North America's leading authority on compostable products and packaging, certifying over 50,000 products from collection bags to food containers. For more than two decades, BPI???has?given?composters and?consumers?confidence in?compostability?claims?with the backing of science-based standards,?while enabling authentically sustainable choices for brands and packagers. BPI champions a systems-wide transition to the circular bioeconomy through rigorous testing, policy advocacy, and industry collaboration, building the infrastructure for "A World Without Organic Waste"—where food scraps and certified compostable packaging become resources. BPI is a?non-profit?501(c)(6). To learn more, visit www.bpiworld.org and follow us on LinkedIn.? We’ve enjoyed the opportunity to interact with Representative Parshall previously and appreciate New Hampshire’s effort to reduce harmful waste, including through EPR legislation, however we strongly oppose this iteration. Unlike other statewide EPR laws across the country, this bill fails to recognize the benefits of composting and compostable products, despite their paying fees into the proposed program. As a result, organics waste management will suffer as money paid by compostable products will be diverted towards non-compost activities, dissuading their use and increasing contamination in compost streams, hurting local businesses. Without programmatic support, compostable products and the organic waste they carry may continue to reach landfills where they can create methane emissions instead of creating a valuable soil amendment in compost. We primarily oppose the following elements: Failure to define “composting” or “compostable.” Though composting is mentioned once, and compostable products are covered, nowhere are these terms defined, including standards for disintegration, independent third-party certification, or product eligibility. Failure to include a member of the compost industry on any advisory body. EPR bills in Colorado and California have included at least one member of the compost industry in an advisory board or council to provide valuable industry input (read: composter, not compostable product-maker) Failure to recognize certified compostable products as a specific packaging category. While categories are specified for ‘paper’ and ‘cardboard’ and various plastic resin types, “Other plastic resin types not specifically identified here” utterly fails to recognize the unique benefits of compostability (food waste diversion, degradability in compost). Failure to specify funding opportunities for compost infrastructure. While the bill distributes funds to reimburse “costs associated with the implementation of reduction and refill and reuse programs, collection, transportation, and recycling of packaging materials,” it fails again to support compostable products within the program and the compost programs they support. We remain happy to work with the legislature to develop language that aligns with existing laws throughout the country and recognizes the benefits provided by certified compostable products alongside reusable and readily recyclable ones. Sincerely, Alexander Truelove Senior Policy Manager, BPI alexander@bpi-world.org
HB1789
House · 2026 sessionDemocraticKilled in HouseExtended producer responsibility for packaging
AICreates a program implementing extended producer responsibility for packaging and provides for its oversight and management through stewardship fees collected and managed by producers.
relative to extended producer responsibility.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
84 submissionsCommon sense requirement to be responsible for the waste you produce..
Extended Producer Responsibility (ERP) makes producers responsible for the packaging waste they produce. Currently, taxpayers or individuals must pay to dispose of whatever packaging producers choose to use. EPR shifts the cost to where it belongs, encouraging the market to reduce wasteful packaging and, in turn, lower costs for garbage processing. Shifting the cost of wasteful packaging from taxpayers to producers will encourage companies to use less packaging and use recyclable components. A study committee in 2024 worked out some of the logistics. More info is available at beyondplastics.org/epr.
I urge you to vote ought to pass (OTP) on HB 1789. This is extremely important legislation, pushing waste policy in the long overdue direction to reduce waste, and even more importantly requiring that producers pay the costs of the wastes they generate, Maine already leads in this model with electronics--and it works well.
Let’s encourage businesses to take responsibility for their packaging waste and encourage reduced packaging and more sustainable packaging options.
HB1789 would assess a fee on producers of packaging, commensurate with the difficulty of disposing of that packaging, and also commensurate with toxics contained in the packaging material. It would incentivize producers to innovate -- to avoid hazardous materials in packaging, to decrease the amount of packaging, and to make that packaging easier to recycle. These changes would save municipalities (and thus save taxpayers) money on waste disposal. It would also save NH citizens the cost of addressing health issues, due to avoided toxic substances, fewer emissions from less waste incineration, and less contamination of soil and water from landfill leachate.
This bill is a wonderful way to get companies to package products in a way that would reduce toxic waste, reduce the total amount of packaging and potentially not fill up our land fill sites as fast.
Accountability is important
“Extended Producer Responsibility” means producers are responsible for the packaging waste they produce. Currently municipalities pay (through their solid waste departments) to dispose of whatever packaging comes our way. EPR can reduce toxics and waste from packaging & cut costs for city garbage. Shifting cost from taxpayers to the companies will encourage companies to use less packaging, produce packaging with fewer toxics and with recyclable components. Could change how NH deals with waste!
I support this - producers should have to take the responsibility to pay for recycling and disposal of packaging waste and not the municipalities.
We have long neglected to hold industry accountable for their downstream costs.
I strongly urge you to support HB 1789. The disposal of solid waste is becoming an increasing financial and environmental burden on the people of NH. HB 1789 provides a needed framework to increase accountability for those generating the increasing amount of packaging that we are faced with on a daily basis. This packaging takes up ever larger amounts of our solid waste capacity. If you make it, you're responsible for it. That strikes me as a fundamental principle that should govern our lives rather than shifting the burden of disposal onto the public at large. Thank you for your attention to this important legislation, John Walsh
Extended Producer Responsibility bills are the correct way with dealing with waste. If the producers don't like it THEY will change.
If the state of NH would pay its fair share, we taxpayers would save far more on property taxes. Stop the gop tax scam for once and for all. NH must fund public education. GOP lawmakers pretend to lower taxes, but it's only for the rich, so New Hampshire families pay for it in the end.
Please protect all generations from toxins, they have become so prevalent in our time. All living beings will be grateful!
HB1789-FN shifts the responsibility for excess packaging to producers. Encouraging and supporting producers to rethink and redesign their packaging can benefit businesses (less packaging means lower product and shipping costs), consumers (less packaging means lower health risks and cleaner environments), municipalities (less solid waste to manage), and the state (less litter helps support tourism). Please vote OTP on HB1789. Thank you!
As a citizen of NH I implore you to take positive action on this bill. We are loaded down with plastic packaging that is neither recyclable nor compostable. It is causing grave danger to our health and our precious environment including the water we drink, the air we breathe and the food we eat. Please consider passing this bill so we can get started making those responsible find innovative ways to invent new and healthier ways to package food and other items. Thank you, Kathleen Manfre
Hold producers financially and legally accountable for the toxic waste they produce in their packaging. Their materials are poisoning NH’s environment.
Making producers legally and financially responsible for the waste and toxics in packaging and products is the only best to reduce/eliminate waste and toxics which consumers are not in a position to effectively deal with. Producers should not 'download' these responsibilities, they should be part of their cost of doing business.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.