Maryland: sustainable packaging labelling

Executive summary

Maryland regulates both mandatory material coding and voluntary environmental claim language. Environment section 9-1710 requires covered plastic bottles and rigid containers to carry a numbered resin-identification symbol. Section 9-2102 goes further than general deception law by prohibiting specified degradation words on plastic products and by defining the standards that support compostable, home-compostable and soil-degradable representations.

Maryland also enacted a statewide packaging producer-responsibility program in 2025. Implementing regulations became effective in May 2026, and producer plans are due on the statutory timetable beginning in 2028. These organisational, reporting and funding duties are important, but they do not create a universal sustainability mark for consumer packaging. A report should not treat EPR participation as evidence that a package is recyclable or compostable.

Legal status at a glance

Rigid plastic resin identification

Section 9-1710 covers a plastic bottle with a neck smaller than its body and a capacity of at least 16 fluid ounces but less than five gallons, and a rigid plastic container with a capacity of at least eight ounces but less than five gallons. A person may not distribute a covered item for sale in Maryland unless it carries the prescribed resin code.

The mark appears on or near the bottom and must be clearly visible. It uses three arrows forming a triangle around the number 1 through 7, with the resin abbreviation. The code identifies the material and does not establish that the package is collected or reprocessed. Any separate recyclable statement requires its own evidence.

Prohibited degradation language

For plastic products sold in Maryland, section 9-2102 generally prohibits labels using “biodegradable,” “degradable,” “decomposable” or another term that implies the product will break down, biodegrade or decompose. The rule has applied since 1 October 2018. It reaches more than exact keywords: synonyms and imagery that communicate the prohibited degradation proposition can also create risk.

The restriction addresses a recurring consumer misunderstanding. Breakdown in a laboratory or fragmentation into smaller plastic pieces does not necessarily establish complete biological conversion in an ordinary disposal environment. A business should not rely on a supplier's generic degradability certificate without matching the test conditions, statutory route and actual consumer claim.

Commercial and home compostability claims

A plastic product labelled compostable must meet the applicable ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 standard and comply with the FTC Green Guides. The choice depends on whether the item is a plastic designed for composting or packaging that incorporates a plastic coating or additive with paper or another substrate. Certification and test records should correspond to the complete marketed article, including inks, adhesives and labels where relevant.

A home-compostable claim follows the statutory certification route based on the OK Compost HOME programme and must also satisfy federal claim principles. The claim should make the disposal environment unmistakable. Commercial compostability does not mean home compostability, and the availability of municipal or private composting access can require a clear qualification even where the material passes the technical standard.

Soil-degradable agricultural mulch film

Maryland provides a narrow route for qualifying agricultural mulch film. The product must satisfy the authorised OK Biodegradable SOIL certification route or demonstrate at least 90 percent biodegradation within two years under ISO 17556 or ASTM D5988, together with the statute's plant-growth and regulated-metals conditions. This exception should not be generalised to ordinary packaging or consumer products.

The evidence file should include the test method, laboratory, sample identity, pass criteria, certification status and marketed use. A claim for a different disposal environment requires a separate legal and technical basis.

Packaging producer responsibility

Chapter 431 of 2025 established Maryland's statewide producer-responsibility system for packaging and paper products. The producer hierarchy addresses brand owners, manufacturers, importers and sellers, including distance-commerce situations. COMAR 26.04.14 was adopted in May 2026 and became effective on 25 May 2026. Producer plans are due by 1 July 2028 and then on the recurring statutory schedule.

The program concerns producer organisations, needs assessment, plans, performance, reporting and financing. It does not itself prescribe a general consumer-facing EPR logo. Its definition and treatment of compostable packaging interact with sections 9-2102 and 9-2104, but programme classification is not a substitute for satisfying the on-pack compostability-claim conditions.

Who bears each obligation

The resin statute uses a distribution-for-sale prohibition, making manufacturers, importers and distributors relevant to market release. Section 9-2102 regulates sale of the labelled plastic product and therefore requires coordination among the product manufacturer, packaging supplier, brand owner and retailer. The EPR statute uses a separate producer hierarchy that should be applied to the branded package and sales arrangement.

A Maryland compliance matrix should identify one owner for physical resin coding, one for environmental claims and certifications, and one for EPR registration and plan obligations. A single “manufacturer” field obscures the actual statutory assignments.

Enforcement and evidence

Maryland's environmental authorities enforce the waste and packaging provisions, while misleading claims may also engage consumer-protection law. Remedies vary by provision, so the report should not present one universal packaging fine. A prohibited word can require immediate artwork correction even when the package otherwise meets the resin-code and EPR requirements.

Retain resin and capacity specifications, photographs of the bottom mark, complete compostability test reports, certification licences, access qualifications, final production proofs and the EPR producer determination. Standards and certifications should be checked for current editions and continued validity before each renewal or significant package change.

Practical artwork checklist

Classify the package under section 9-1710 and inspect the code. Search all package panels, inserts and online product descriptions for degradation language and implied breakdown claims. For compostable wording, match the complete article to the correct ASTM and certification route and qualify disposal access where needed. Determine the EPR producer and milestones separately, and do not add an unsupported programme or recyclability logo.

Primary sources and verification

Maryland General Assembly. Environment section 9-1710, plastic resin identification. Official statute

Maryland General Assembly. Environment section 9-2102, degradability and compostability labelling. Official statute

Maryland General Assembly. Senate Bill 901 / Chapter 431 of 2025, packaging producer responsibility. Official legislative record

Maryland General Assembly. Enrolled text of Senate Bill 901. Official enacted text

Maryland Register. COMAR 26.04.14, packaging and paper-product producer responsibility. Official adoption record

Maryland General Assembly. Environment section 9-2501, EPR definitions. Official current statute

Federal Trade Commission. Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 C.F.R. Part 260. Official Green Guides

Federal Trade Commission. Environmental Claims: Summary of the Green Guides. Business guidance

The applicable standards, certifications and EPR schedule should be confirmed before market release. Last verified: 21 August 2026.