Careful!
You've changed the incentive, but doubled the potential number of material transports needed to move packaging back to the source.
In the interim period, while businesses figure out how to deal with less packaging, you end up with all the current stuff going back and forth all over the country, or you end up with attempts to set up a shadow infrastructure designed to ensure the right amount of packaging is in the right place at the right time to optimize on minimization of cost of the end product which is now priced with material handling in the equation.
Instead of actually changing things the way you hoped, you may just reorganize the supply chain to a slightly more distributed model where packaging doesn't happen until the latest stage in the process.
You've also invoked change in regulatory framework. Do we end up having to get FDA approval on alternate forms of food packaging or plasticless food transportation systems?
Do the details of the implementation threaten some national security metric with regards to food availability?
I'm mot saying I disagree with the intent at all, mind, but broad strokes without focusing on the nagging details have a way of coming back to haunt one in the long run. There are a lot of metrics and analysis that would need to be done before just declaring one day "Thou shalt!"
Which is probably no less than what will be needed sadly.