The debate around plastic packaging is increasingly dominated by questions of waste, recyclability and regulation, but a new US study is shifting attention toward another issue: consumer affordability. According to a report commissioned by the American Consumer Institute (ACI) and conducted by York University researcher Calvin Lakhan, removing plastic packaging from a range of everyday grocery products could significantly raise the cost of shopping for American households.

The analysis suggests that eliminating plastic packaging from common household and food items would increase the average grocery bill by around US$60.75 per trip. That finding places packaging choices in a broader economic context, especially at a time when inflation and household budgets remain under pressure. For the packaging sector, the study adds weight to a growing argument that material transitions cannot be discussed only in environmental terms, but must also consider cost, logistics and food access.

One of the clearest examples in the report is its “breakfast shock” scenario, which looks at staple products such as milk, bacon and frozen fruit for smoothies. In that case, replacing plastic packaging would increase the cost of those items by 24.5 per cent, or roughly US$6.34 more per trip. While that may appear manageable in isolation, the study argues that similar increases across multiple product categories would quickly compound, especially for families purchasing essentials every week.

The report also points to notable rises in other categories. Milk prices could increase by 38.3 per cent, carbonated beverages by 55.1 per cent, and products such as meat and frozen foods by between 15 and 28 per cent. These cost increases are not attributed only to alternative materials themselves, but also to the wider effects of material substitution across the supply chain.

According to the study, the economic impact of reducing plastic packaging would come from a mix of higher material costs, transport inefficiencies, manufacturing changes and increased spoilage risk.

That last point is especially relevant for food packaging. Plastics often deliver a strong balance of lightweighting, product protection, shelf life and cost efficiency, particularly in categories where moisture control, sealing and durability are critical. Replacing those functions with other materials can affect more than just pack design. It can influence transport weights, production speeds, waste levels and product losses across distribution. In sectors such as chilled foods, beverages and frozen products, even small packaging changes can have wider commercial consequences.

The study also suggests that lower- and middle-income households would be hit hardest, since groceries account for a larger share of their monthly spending. That framing is likely to resonate in policy discussions where bans, restrictions or aggressive material substitution targets are being considered. While environmental pressure on single-use plastics is unlikely to ease, the report argues that affordability should remain part of the packaging conversation rather than being treated as a secondary concern.

For the packaging industry, the findings do not amount to a defence of inaction. Instead, they reinforce the need for a more balanced transition strategy: one that improves recycling, supports better waste management and encourages material innovation without ignoring the role plastic still plays in keeping many everyday products practical and affordable. As regulatory pressure continues to build, the challenge for packaging stakeholders will be to show how sustainability goals can be advanced without creating unintended cost burdens for consumers at the checkout.