IN Brief:
- Defra plans to exempt qualifying glass drinks containers sold directly to licensed hospitality venues from EPR disposal fees from April 2027.
- MPMA says reallocating household packaging costs could disadvantage heavier steel food cans against some competing formats.
- Official provisional 2025 UK data put steel packaging recycling at 88.5%, although that rate does not determine fees alone.
The Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association (MPMA) has warned that the government’s decision to reduce certain glass packaging charges could place additional financial pressure on steel food cans under the United Kingdom’s packaging Extended Producer Responsibility scheme. The organisation’s chief executive, Jason Galley, raised the concern on 12 November, a day after Defra set out measures aimed at preventing licensed hospitality businesses from being charged twice for handling glass bottles. The association supports removing genuine double charging but disputes the wider distribution of packaging disposal costs.
From April 2027, the government intends to exempt glass drinks containers supplied directly by producers to pubs, restaurants and other licensed hospitality premises from Extended Producer Responsibility disposal fees. Defra estimates that removing the overlap in waste charges could save businesses up to 6p per beer bottle or 10p per wine bottle; its illustrative pub example amounts to £870 a year. Separately, ministers plan to consult on fee changes intended to favour easier-to-recycle packaging. The specified hospitality exemption and the prospective changes to the wider fee model are separate measures, and neither currently establishes an increase in steel can charges.
Jason Galley, MPMA director and chief executive, said: “Nobody should be paying twice but there is a further consequence of Defra’s decision that MPMA has repeatedly raised with policy officials.” He believes the costs excluded from one packaging stream could be redistributed to producers placing other materials on the market. Steel food cans are the focus of his objection because their weight can generate a higher charge per individual container under a fee system calculated by material and tonnage. The scale and allocation of any additional liability will depend on the detailed implementation, rather than being established by the association’s statement.
Packaging EPR is based on data submitted by obligated producers about the material and weight of relevant packaging. Disposal fees are calculated from material-specific costs and reported tonnage, with adjustments for recyclability being introduced through the Recyclability Assessment Methodology. A relatively heavy pack can therefore incur a substantial per-unit amount even when its material is collected and recycled at a high rate. MPMA argues that this disadvantages steel compared with lighter plastic or fibre-based alternatives. Actual container costs also depend on the pack’s mass, applicable fee category, and final rates, so recycling percentages alone cannot determine the result.
Food cans require material properties that allow filling, hermetic sealing, thermal processing, transport and long-term storage without loss of package integrity. Steel’s strength, formability and barrier performance are useful in products including soups, vegetables, pulses, fish and prepared meals, while alternative materials may meet different process specifications. A widening per-container cost gap could affect procurement decisions where formats compete for the same food application. The MPMA argues that such changes could also influence the economics of long-life food stocks, although its release contains no quantified evidence of switching, factory closures or reduced national reserves caused by the latest policy decision.
MPMA also points to differences between measured recycling outcomes and the scheme’s base fees. Defra’s provisional packaging statistics for 2025 put the UK steel packaging recycling rate at 88.5%, aluminium packaging at 61.1%, glass at 75.1% and plastic at 57.3%. These figures describe the weight of material recycled against reported packaging placed on the market, not an individual pack’s recyclability assessment or its EPR charge. Separate recycling targets and assessments apply, and rates cannot by themselves demonstrate that one fee should be higher or lower than another.
Further uncertainty concerns the rate applied to packaging receiving a red recyclability rating. PackUK’s existing published timetable sets a modulation multiplier of 1.2 for the 2026–27 assessment year, rising to 1.6 in 2027–28 and 2.0 in 2028–29. MPMA says the government is considering bringing the 2.0 multiplier forward for packaging placed on the market in 2026 and expects to be consulted. That proposed acceleration is not the same as a changed rate already in force. The consultation and any subsequent revision to the published policy will determine whether, when, and how the higher factor applies.
Galley describes the possibility of higher steel container costs as a concern for UK food security and emergency preparedness, arguing that the economics of long-life canned products could be weakened. That is a sectoral warning rather than evidence of a quantified threat to national food stocks. The association previously pressed for changes to packaging policy more broadly, and its latest intervention focuses the dispute on how base fees and red, amber and green ratings interact at the individual-container level. Its earlier policy representations provide context for the continuing disagreement.
PackUK’s published modulation method redistributes the household packaging disposal burden according to red, amber and green assessments, with higher charges on red-rated packs used to fund discounts on green-rated packs. The precise benefit or liability depends on the base fee and the tonnage reported in each category. Galley maintains that the base fee structure must be reconsidered before stronger modulation is introduced, and the MPMA wants direct involvement in the government’s consultation. Its challenge raises a concrete question for the next fee calculation: how a change intended to relieve charges on one packaging stream will affect the per-container cost of the food packs using other materials.
