The Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association says Defra’s decision to reduce glass packaging charges does not remove the cost, it moves it – and the steel food can, being denser and heavier, will carry a disproportionate share of the burden.

Jason Galley, director and chief executive of the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association (MPMA), responded to the decision to reduce glass packaging charges. His message to the wider packaging industry: the relief given to one material has consequences for others, and steel food cans are first in line to feel them.

The cost that doesn’t vanish

Galley opens with common ground before turning to what he sees as the problem. “Nobody should be paying twice but there is a further consequence of Defra’s decision that MPMA has repeatedly raised with policy officials,” he said. “Removing EPR costs from glass packaging does not make those costs disappear, instead they will simply be redistributed across other packaging materials.”

Heavy metal, heavy burden

The MPMA’s concern is where that redistribution lands. “Because steel is denser and heavier, the steel food can will shoulder a disproportionate share of that additional burden,” Galley said. “This will widen the already perverse EPR fee differential between steel food cans and competing plastic and fibre-based composite packaging formats, putting steel at an even greater disadvantage.”

The association’s argument is underpinned by the recycling rates it supplied for reference. Steel packaging recycles at 88.5% in the UK (Gov.uk, 2025), ahead of every other material in the comparison:

Food security in the firing line

Galley argues the impact stretches beyond packaging competitiveness. “The consequences extend beyond packaging competitiveness,” he said. “This decision will have a damaging impact on the role the steel food can is able to play in supporting UK food security, national resilience and emergency preparedness, including the Government’s own ‘Be Ready’ campaign. It’s another spectacular own goal by Defra at a time when sovereign resilience is the focal point of government intent.”

Modulation moves the goalposts

A second concern is the Government’s announcement that it will consult industry on accelerating the ratcheting up of RED rated fee modulation directly to 2.0 for packaging placed on the market in 2026. “The MPMA and its members expect to be consulted,” Galley said.

He said it remains to be seen how the change shifts relative EPR fees for GREEN rated packaging at the container level for different materials. But he pointed to a clear example of the distortion he expects to widen. “As Defra already knows, accelerating RAM 2.0 modulation will exaggerate an already perverse difference between a steel container and a plastic container for paint,” he said. “Both are rated ‘Red’, but because the EPR base fees are already out of kilter then that disparity will become even greater. Even ahead of the Government announcement, the MPMA has already explained the catastrophic impact this will have on the sector and the knock-on effects for UK-made steel.”

Material case

For Galley, the glass decision and the modulation proposal point to the same root cause. “These factors only serve to underline the fundamental issue with EPR, that the base fees at container level favour the use of higher amounts of plastic and other less recyclable materials and disadvantage steel,” he said. “There is no sensible modulation without a revision of base fees and Defra seems intent on continuing to fight against the laws of mathematics rather than solving the problem.”

The MPMA’s position is a signal to watch the forthcoming consultation closely. The association’s case is that fees set at container level, rather than recyclability, are steering the market towards materials that recycle less well – and that each adjustment made without revisiting base fees compounds the effect.