Who's Actually Responsible for Your Empty Toothpaste Tube? EPR Laws Explained

For decades, the answer was: you. That's finally starting to change.

Think about what happens to your empty toothpaste tube. You squeeze out the last bit, toss it in the bin, and that's it for you. But that tube, made from mixed materials that most recycling facilities won't touch, will likely end up in landfill or incineration. The brand that made it? They moved on the moment you paid.

This is the accountability gap at the heart of the global plastic crisis. And a policy called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is designed to close it by making brands financially responsible for the waste their products generate, not just up to the point of sale.

Here's what EPR actually means, why oral care brands specifically are in the crosshairs, and why it matters which toothbrush you choose.

Quick Answer Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy framework that makes brands financially responsible for the end-of-life management of the products and packaging they sell. Instead of taxpayers and local governments covering waste collection and recycling costs, the brand that created the packaging pays. EPR laws are already active in the EU and six US states, with more rolling out globally through 2026 and beyond.

 

The Plastic Accountability Gap

Here's how the current system works. A brand designs a product, manufactures it, sells it to you, and collects the revenue. When you're done with it, you're responsible for disposal. If it can't be recycled (which, for most personal care packaging, it can't), it goes to landfill. The brand bears none of that cost.

The result is a completely disconnected incentive structure. Brands have no financial reason to design products that are easier to recycle, because they don't pay when their products can't be. That cost lands on municipalities, taxpayers, and ultimately the environment.

We looked at how this plays out specifically in oral care in our article Waste Is a Design Problem: Insights from the Circular Economy. The design choices that create waste aren't accidents. They're defaults that nobody with power was being asked to change.

What Extended Producer Responsibility Actually Does

EPR flips the accountability model. Under an EPR framework, the brand that puts a product on the market is legally and financially responsible for what happens to it at end of life.

In practice this means brands pay into a system that funds collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure. The fees are typically calculated based on the type and volume of packaging a brand sells into a market. Harder-to-recycle materials cost more. That creates a direct financial incentive to use less packaging, simpler materials, and designs that are actually recyclable.

Critically, the producer in EPR law is almost always the brand owner, not the factory that made the packaging. If your logo is on it, it's your responsibility.

Where is this already law:

•       European Union: EPR for packaging has been mandatory across member states since 2023, with fees tied to recyclability

•       United Kingdom: Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging launched in 2024

•       United States: California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington have active EPR packaging laws, with compliance deadlines running through 2026 and 2027

•       Asia: South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have had EPR frameworks for years; Malaysia and several Southeast Asian markets are actively developing similar legislation

A useful breakdown of how US EPR packaging laws are being implemented state by state is worth reading if you want the compliance detail.

Which Brands Are Most Exposed (And Why Oral Care Is Near the Top)

EPR fees hit hardest on brands that sell high volumes of hard-to-recycle packaging. That is a very accurate description of the oral care industry.

Consider what a major toothpaste brand actually sells at scale:

•       Toothpaste tubes: multi-layer laminate plastic, almost universally non-recyclable in standard facilities

•       Toothbrush handles: mixed plastics fused into a single-use form, non-recyclable, replaced every 3 months per person

•       Mouthwash bottles: typically HDPE or PET, often recyclable in theory but contaminated by product residue in practice

Brands like Colgate and Oral-B sell these products at billions of units annually. Under EPR, that volume becomes a direct liability. The more non-recyclable packaging you put into a market, the more you pay.

Some brands are already responding: reformulating packaging, launching take-back schemes, making sustainability commitments. But when you look closely, many of those commitments are about packaging optics, not product design. Changing the colour of a plastic toothbrush handle or switching to a recyclable box doesn't address the core problem: a product designed to be thrown away entirely, every 3 months, forever.

What EPR Means for the Toothbrush Specifically

The toothbrush is an interesting case under EPR because of the volume and the material complexity.

Globally, we discard an estimated 3.5 billion toothbrushes every year. Each one is a mixed-material product: nylon bristles embedded into a plastic handle, often with rubber grip inserts. Separating those materials for recycling is not economically viable at scale. Most end up in landfill or, as we covered in Making Waves with Reusable Toothbrushes, in the ocean.

Under EPR, a brand selling 100 million toothbrushes per year into an EPR market would owe fees on every single one. If those toothbrushes can't be recycled, the fees are higher. That financial pressure doesn't fix the problem automatically, but it does make the current design model expensive to maintain.

The brands best positioned under EPR are those whose products are either recyclable, refillable, or designed to generate less waste in the first place. Not coincidentally, those are also better products for the planet.

Why BRiN Was Built With This in Mind

We didn't design BRiN in response to EPR legislation. We designed it because the single-use toothbrush model is simply a bad design: wasteful by default, profitable for the wrong reasons.

But the principles overlap completely. The BRiN replaceable-head toothbrush generates less material waste per user per year by design. The handle lasts years. Only the head is replaced every 3 months. The volume of plastic entering the waste stream is a fraction of what a conventional toothbrush model produces.

Under EPR frameworks, that matters. A brand that puts less unrecyclable material into the market pays less in EPR fees, because it's actually creating less of the problem EPR is designed to solve.

More on our broader material and environmental commitments is on our Climate Commitment page.

What You Can Actually Do With This Information

EPR is a policy lever. It doesn't solve the plastic problem on its own, and it doesn't change things overnight. But it creates the conditions for better incentives, and it signals where regulation is heading.

As a consumer, the most direct thing you can do is choose products that generate less waste by design, not just products with greener marketing. Ask:

•       Is this product refillable or replaceable rather than disposable?

•       Is the packaging actually recyclable in your local system, not just marked with a recycling symbol?

•       Is the brand transparent about what happens to its products at end of life?

Those questions push the market in the right direction faster than any individual policy, because they signal demand to brands that are watching very carefully what sells.

TL;DR

Extended Producer Responsibility makes brands financially responsible for the end-of-life management of their packaging. It's already law in the EU, the UK, and six US states. Oral care brands are significantly exposed because they sell enormous volumes of non-recyclable single-use products.

The brands best positioned are those that design out waste from the start: refillable, replaceable, or genuinely recyclable products. Everything else is expensive window dressing on a model that regulation is making harder to defend.

What is extended producer responsibility?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that requires brands and manufacturers to take financial responsibility for the end-of-life management of their products and packaging. Rather than municipalities and taxpayers absorbing recycling and disposal costs, the brand that sold the product pays for those systems.

Which countries have EPR laws for packaging?

The EU has mandatory EPR for packaging across all member states. The UK launched its EPR packaging scheme in 2024. In the US, California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington have enacted laws. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have had frameworks for years. Malaysia and several other Southeast Asian markets are actively developing legislation.

Does EPR apply to toothbrushes?

Yes. Toothbrushes are a consumer product with plastic packaging and plastic components, which falls within the scope of EPR frameworks. Brands selling toothbrushes in EPR markets are responsible for the waste those products generate. The harder-to-recycle the product, the higher the EPR fees in most frameworks.

How does EPR affect me as a consumer?

Directly, EPR may lead to slightly higher product prices as brands pass compliance costs through. More importantly, it creates financial pressure on brands to redesign products and packaging to reduce waste, which benefits everyone. Choosing brands already aligned with EPR principles means you're ahead of the shift rather than waiting for it.

What's the difference between EPR and a recycling symbol on packaging?

A recycling symbol on packaging means the material is theoretically recyclable, but it doesn't guarantee it will actually be recycled in your local system. EPR goes further: it makes the brand financially responsible for ensuring collection and recycling infrastructure exists and works. It shifts the burden of proof from the consumer to the producer.