The RAM was updated by PackUK in July and included a new requirement that packaging containing PFAS – also known as forever chemicals – automatically sits under the “red” classification.
Packaging classified as red carries the highest cost under the modulated fee system for Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging (pEPR).
Both the recycling and packaging industries have expressed serious concerns with the new rating system.
Automatic red classification
The July update to the RAM came with several new changes for 2027 (known as RAM 2027).
Among the most notable changes were updates to the “automatic red” criteria – packaging formats or materials that will automatically be deemed difficult or unsuitable for recycling.
These included packaging containing more than one part per million (ppm) of total PFAS, with a tighter threshold of 25 parts per billion (ppb) for food packaging.
Packaging containing substances of concern above limits set under UK REACH legislation, including Annex XIV and XVII substances, substances of very high concern (SVHCs), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) substances and those classified under CLP, would also automatically receive a red rating.
In a recent opinion piece for letsrecycle.com, Brian Lodge, Director of Plastics and Flexible Packaging at The British Plastics Federation, said: “The moving of PFAS from ‘intentionally added’ in RAM 1.1 to all PFAS, in all packaging, at extremely low levels was unforeseen as most were happy with the older regulation.
“This tightening is far stricter than the EUs Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which was already causing many issues within the industry.”
Unintended consequences of the change
While the industry has largely accepted the intentions behind the inclusion, it has highlighted that there may be several negative knock-on effects.
Many recycled items include levels of PFAS and trade bodies have expressed concern that the RAM guidance could have the unintended consequence of driving producers away from the use of recycled material.
An example of this is recycled paper, which contains levels of PFAS due to the use of water in the pulping process.
Martin Kersh, CEO of the Packaging Federation, said: “We are not questioning the need to regulate PFAS appropriately.
“We are questioning why the unintended presence of PFAS should automatically make otherwise recyclable packaging red under RAM, without clear evidence that it compromises recycling.
“Automatically classifying packaging as red could discourage the use of otherwise recyclable materials, undermine demand for recycled content and distort investment decisions.
“That is hardly the outcome the recycling industry needs. Where particular PFAS substances genuinely interfere with recycling, the evidence should identify the materials and processes affected rather than treating all packaging alike.”
The purpose of the RAM
The industry has questioned the suitability of the RAM as a place to regulate chemicals.
The RAM was created to assess recyclability – and the presence of PFAS does not necessarily mean that an item cannot be recycled.
Kersh added: “PackUK needs to demonstrate that its proposed thresholds are relevant to actual recycling processes, rather than simply importing chemical limits from the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.”
Calls for delay while evidence is gathered
The Packaging Federation, alongside other industry bodies, is calling for PackUK to delay the inclusion of PFAS in the RAM by 12 months.
Kersh continued: “Our proposal to PackUK is simple: defer the proposed change for 12 months and retain the existing RAM 1.1 wording, ‘intentionally added’, in the meantime.
“Use this period to examine the technical evidence with recyclers, reprocessors, packaging manufacturers and independent laboratories, establish the consequences for recycling markets and determine whether a different approach is actually necessary.
“This is not an argument for delaying environmental protection. It is an argument for making sure the rules achieve their intended purpose without damaging the recycling industry they are supposed to support.
“PackUK has indicated that it remains open to further evidence. We welcome that, but the logical next step is to allow sufficient time for the evidence to be examined before changing the rules.”
Others want the RAM to be revisited and for the focus to continue to be on “intentional added PFAS”.
Dimitra Rappou, Executive Director of Sustainable Products at the Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI), said: “CPI’s preferred approach is for RAM 2027 to continue focusing on intentionally added PFAS. Any future move towards broader PFAS thresholds should only be considered following a thorough review of the evidence, operational impacts and implementation challenges.
“It is also important to recognise that applying food-contact packaging requirements across all packaging formats could create unintended consequences, particularly for recovered fibre. Capturing unintentionally present PFAS risks penalising recycled materials and could inadvertently encourage a shift towards virgin fibre, undermining circular economy objectives.
“Sufficient laboratory capacity, robust testing methodologies and realistic implementation timelines must also be taken into account.”
Defra response
Defra and PackUK have set up a technical taskforce to look at the issue in further detail.
A PackUK spokesperson said: “We’ve listened to concerns about this change and have set up a technical expert group in response. Conversations with industry and findings will inform our next steps, and we will provide an update as soon as possible.
“We are making it easier for producers to shape future changes, encouraging input from all across the packaging value chain.”
Register for free to comment