Amsterdam Explores a Ban on Single-Use Packaging

Amsterdam is exploring a ban on single-use packaging, including coffee cups, fast-food containers and other single-use plastics. The city has commissioned a study into what it can legally do, according to a report published by DutchNews.nl on 23 October 2026.

The reasoning starts with litter. According to the city, single-use plastics make up 30% of the rubbish found on its streets. They are typically used for about seven minutes and then take hundreds of years to decompose. The city describes single-use packaging as a major problem.

Lian Heinhuis, the Amsterdam executive responsible for waste and sanitation, framed litter as a symptom of what she called a throwaway society, one that costs the city millions every year. She added that the solution is within reach, and that it lies in putting an end to the throwaway culture.

The study is not a ban yet. Amsterdam will look at what it is legally allowed to do, work with business owners and residents, and examine how other cities handle the problem. That consultation step matters, because a ban on everyday items such as takeaway cups lands directly on cafes, restaurants and their customers.

The legal route is a real constraint. CircuLaw, a legal information provider on circular transitions, notes that a ban could be introduced only after less restrictive measures have proven ineffective. In practice this means a city has to show that softer tools, such as encouraging reuse or voluntary schemes, have not delivered before it can move to a prohibition.

The coverage points to two cities as points of comparison. Lisbon has already implemented a single-use packaging ban, which gives Amsterdam a working example to study. Copenhagen is cited as another city whose approach is relevant.

The report also sets out what a ban needs in order to work. It is more likely to succeed where there is a reliable supply of reusable packaging and a well-established return system. Without those two pieces, businesses and consumers would have no practical alternative to the disposable item, and a prohibition could simply shift the problem rather than solve it.

For businesses, the message is to watch the study closely. Any eventual rule would probably depend on reusable options being easy to obtain and easy to return, which favours operators and suppliers that are already investing in deposit or return systems. For residents, the immediate effect is an invitation to take part in the discussion rather than a change at the counter.

For a capital city that markets itself on its canals and public spaces, the cost of litter is both financial and visual. Amsterdam's study will show whether a ban is legally and practically workable, and how quickly. The city has not announced a timetable in the coverage reviewed, so the next milestone to watch is the outcome of the legal study and the conversations with businesses and residents.

Why it matters

Disposable packaging is designed to be used for minutes and to last for centuries, and Amsterdam's study treats that mismatch as a design problem for the whole city. A ban only works when reusable alternatives and return systems exist, which is why this story is as much about infrastructure as about prohibition. For Exereco readers, it is a clear example of how cities can move from clean-up to prevention.