Food businesses preparing packaging for next year need to keep two reporting periods separate. RAM version 1.1 applies to recyclability assessments for the 2026 reporting year. RAM 2027 applies to household packaging supplied during the 2027 reporting year by the large producers required to pay household packaging waste disposal fees under packaging extended producer responsibility.
PackUK published RAM 2027 on 1 July 2026. November is therefore a useful point to check the evidence behind next year’s packaging specifications, without applying the new methodology to the wrong reporting period.
The practical challenge is to connect the correct rules to the correct pack, supplier specification and year. A general statement that a material is recyclable is not a substitute for that work.
Start with the organisation’s obligations
RAM is part of the UK packaging EPR system. It should not be confused with the separate EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation or with a consumer recycling label.
GOV.UK’s large-producer guidance identifies organisations with annual turnover above £2 million that are responsible for supplying more than 50 tonnes of packaging in the UK. Whether an organisation is obligated also depends on its activities, the applicable reporting rules and, where relevant, its group structure. Businesses below the large-producer thresholds should check the small-producer guidance rather than assume there are no obligations.
For a food supplier, a sensible first step is to establish who owns this assessment internally and who is the obligated producer for each arrangement. Own-brand manufacturing, importing and supplying packaging under different brands can make an informal assumption unreliable.
Record the conclusion and its basis. A clear allocation of responsibility is more useful than finding out late in the reporting cycle that the retailer, manufacturer and packaging supplier each expected someone else to provide the data.
Keep the reporting year visible
Put the reporting year and RAM version on every assessment record. Retain the evidence supporting the existing assessment before creating the next version.
For example, a chilled-food business might retain a 2026 assessment for its current tray and build a separate 2027 assessment for a revised format. This makes it possible to see whether a change in outcome comes from the pack itself, a new supplier specification or the applicable methodology.
Treat that example as a record-management approach, not a prescribed government template. The underlying requirement is to follow the correct official assessment guidance for the reporting year.
Build an evidence file for the actual pack
Begin with a pack inventory linked to the products that use it. Record the supplier, specification version, materials and weights, and obtain the technical information needed by the relevant assessment pathway.
For a food pack, the investigation may need to cover more than the main container. Ask the supplier about lids, films, labels, sleeves, coatings and adhesives where they are relevant to the assessment. Do not assign a rating simply because the largest component is made from a familiar material.
A useful internal file connects the specification, assessment reasoning and supporting supplier evidence. Give uncertain items an owner and a resolution date. Where information is missing, seek clarification through the official guidance or the environmental regulator instead of guessing a favourable result.
GOV.UK’s methodology guidance explains that most obligated producers are not required to submit a methodology document, while online marketplaces have specific submission duties. It also explains how a documented process can support accurate data and continuity when staff change. For food businesses, that is a practical reason to write down how the numbers were obtained.
Separate recyclability, food performance and marketing claims
A proposed packaging change should be assessed on several questions. Does it meet the applicable RAM criteria? Can it protect the food through the intended distribution and use conditions? Can the line handle it reliably? What evidence supports the wording that will appear on the pack?
These questions should be answered together by packaging, technical, operations and commercial colleagues. A promising recyclability assessment does not itself demonstrate that a revised pack will deliver the required shelf life or sealing performance. Conversely, a successful factory trial does not determine the correct RAM rating.
Before a launch decision, define the tests needed for that particular food and distribution route. Keep the results with the approved specification so a later substitution does not quietly remove an assumption on which approval depended.
Use fee information with care
RAM outcomes classify packaging as red, amber or green and inform fee modulation. That gives packaging decisions a financial dimension, but it does not justify treating every published planning figure as a confirmed invoice rate.
PackUK has published illustrative fee information explicitly intended to support planning. Use the latest applicable official fee information and distinguish confirmed charges from illustrative assumptions in any business case. Include other relevant packaging costs rather than presenting a disposal-fee estimate as the entire compliance cost.
For an internal comparison, show the packaging purchase cost, proposed capital or trial expenditure, operational implications and applicable EPR cost separately. This lets decision-makers see which figures are known and which still depend on evidence or confirmation.
Give November’s review a concrete outcome
The useful deliverable is an agreed list of packs that are ready for the new reporting year and a shorter list of unresolved issues. Each open item should state what is missing, who will obtain it and what decision it affects.
Prioritise high-volume packs, planned specification changes and items whose current evidence is weak. Close the review with an agreed process for approving supplier changes and retaining superseded records.
RAM 2027 preparation is most effective when it becomes part of ordinary packaging control. The aim is to enter January with traceable decisions and the correct methodology attached to each reporting period, rather than a hurried collection of unsupported recycling claims.
REFERENCES
Sources checked 26 October 2026. Regulatory statements describe the published guidance at that date; operational examples are editorial recommendations.
1. PackUK and Defra, RAM 2027 and the applicable reporting years: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assess-packaging-recyclability-recyclability-assessment-methodology-ram-2027
2. PackUK, publication of RAM 2027 and assessment outcomes: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/packuk-publishes-recyclability-assessment-methodology-ram-2027
3. GOV.UK, large-producer reporting responsibilities: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-what-to-report-for-epr-for-packaging-as-a-large-producer
4. GOV.UK, checking EPR obligations and group criteria: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-must-comply-with-epr-for-packaging--2
5. GOV.UK, recording and submitting a packaging-data methodology: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/packaging-data-tell-us-how-you-collected-it-for-extended-producer-responsibility
6. PackUK, illustrative 2026 waste disposal fees and their limitations: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illustrative-waste-disposal-fees-2026-extended-producer-responsibility-for-packaging/year-2-illustrative-waste-disposal-fees-extended-producer-responsibility-for-packaging
