Berry Global is being folded into Amcor. The deal was announced in November 2024 and was expected to close in 2025 pending regulatory approvals. And yes, Berry Plastics is the old name — the company rebranded as Berry Global in 2017, and that's the entity Amcor is acquiring. If you searched 'is Berry Plastics now Amcor' because you're holding a Berry contract, here's the practical version: your current orders should ship normally, but your compliance file and material documentation are worth auditing now, not after the close date is announced.
I run purchasing for a 240-person consumer products company — about $180,000 a year across packaging and facility supplies, 12 vendors, and a finance controller who asks for backup on everything. I took over in 2021 (the year supply chains fell apart). I buy rigid plastic containers, closures, and a fair amount of PET and PP on behalf of our contract manufacturers. I am not an Amcor employee, and I'm not giving legal advice. I'm telling you what I check, what I got wrong, and where I'd spend extra.
Here's the thing about acquisitions like this: the logo on the invoice changes long before the operations do. Berry's plants, resin contracts, and account managers don't migrate into Amcor's system on day one. I've been through two smaller vendor mergers since 2021, and the first 6 to 12 months were mostly a paperwork exercise. Pricing held. Lead times wobbled. The account manager got a new email domain and started copying someone from 'integration.'
First, the paperwork
If you've asked Amcor or Berry for an RoHS and REACH statement, you probably got a PDF with a logo, a signature, and a list of restricted substances. Here's the part that bites people: that statement is tied to a legal entity and a date. When the entity changes, the statement can go stale even if the material didn't change by a gram.
RoHS (EU Directive 2011/65/EU) restricts lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB, PBDE, and certain phthalates. REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) is broader and centers on the SVHC candidate list, which is updated roughly twice a year. Neither regulation says 'Amcor packaging is compliant' as a blanket fact. They say specific materials in specific applications meet specific thresholds. A supplier statement is evidence, not a guarantee.
I learned this the annoying way. In 2023, one of our vendors was acquired, and the new entity took about four months to reissue declarations. During that gap, finance flagged an expense because the supplier name on the compliance certificate didn't match the supplier name on the invoice. No product changed. Only the letterhead did. Three emails and a phone call later, we cleared it. (Note to self: add declaration expiry dates to the same spreadsheet as contract renewals.)
Second, the material
On 'is polypropylene plastic recyclable' — technically yes. PP is resin code 5 and it can be mechanically recycled. Practically, it depends on where your containers end up and whether a local stream accepts them. In the U.S., PP recovery has historically been in the low single digits — I've seen estimates between 2% and 5% depending on source and year, and I treat any of those as a rough indicator, not a promise (verify with your MRF and state environmental agency).
For a buyer, this means 'recyclable' on a spec sheet is a material property, not a system property. Your PP container is recyclable where it's accepted and landfill-bound where it isn't. If your customer-facing PET brands are printing recyclability claims, know which claim you're making: recyclable, contains recycled content, or designed for recycling. Three different claims, three different evidentiary burdens.
People assume recycled resin costs more because it's harder to make. Sometimes. But a big chunk of the premium isn't the material — it's certification and traceability. Chain-of-custody documents, third-party audits, segregated streams. You're often paying for the paper trail more than the pellet. That's the causation reversal to remember when a rep quotes 'sustainable' pricing.
Where certainty is worth paying for
During a merger transition, I'd rather pay a small premium for guaranteed supply than gamble on a discount that may or may not materialize after integration. In March 2024 we paid roughly 8% above market on a rush resin order to hold a production date. The alternative was telling our client about a four-week slip. The 8% was cheaper than that conversation.
Same logic applies to paperwork. If a supplier can turn around a current RoHS/REACH declaration in 48 hours instead of two weeks, that responsiveness has a real dollar value when an audit is on the calendar. The cheap supplier whose declaration shows up after the audit window is not cheap.
What I'm not claiming
I don't know the final close date or the post-merger supplier structure. Regulatory approvals slip. Integration plans change. I haven't seen the internal SKU rationalization plan, and neither have most people writing about this.
Also, RoHS doesn't apply to every packaging application the way people assume. It targets electrical and electronic equipment. Packaging suppliers issue statements because customers ask, not always because the regulation compels them. If your product is food-contact, you're likely more concerned with FDA food-contact substance rules and, in the EU, Regulation 10/2011 than with RoHS. Different framework, different paperwork.
And PP recyclability is a moving target. Collection infrastructure changes, legislation changes, resin prices change. What I checked in January 2025 may not hold in 2026. For current text, go to eur-lex.europa.eu for RoHS and REACH, and to your state or national environmental agency for recycling data.
If you're holding a Berry contract right now, my advice is boring: keep ordering, and put the compliance file on your calendar for a 90-day review. Ask your rep for a letter confirming continuity of entity and a current declaration once the deal closes. Get it in writing. The email domain will change whether you're ready or not.