Extended producer responsibility resolution rejected in Massachusetts

An extended producer responsibility (EPR) resolution presented to the Chicopee City Council, MA, proposed transferring responsibility for product and packaging disposal costs from local towns to brand owners and importers. Although the resolution suggested that electronic waste would be the initial focus of any implemented EPR program in Massachusetts, it also included packaging in its mandate.

According to a statement from Kim Guarnaccia, director of marketing and communications at the Paperboard Packaging Council, this EPR resolution was unanimously rejected by the council after they hearing Jeff Shinners', president of Pioneer Packaging and a member of the Paperboard Packaging Council (PPC), arguments against the proposal.

Shinners reportedly supports the basic tenets of EPR, but he and other local businesspeople opposed this resolution because it did not exempt paperboard packaging, which is already recycled at a high rate. "Our voluntary recycling program for paper-based packaging already works incredibly well so [paperboard packaging] should be exempt from the proposed EPR program," explains Shinners. "I say this because the potentially expensive cost of managing and administering a complex EPR program will far outweigh the minor benefits of a point or two increase in paper recycling, an increase that will be achieved soon enough with our existing voluntary recycling program."

There is also a concern that EPR programs will adversely affect businesses. "Any added cost for recovering recycled paper and board will no doubt be passed on to those who purchase paper-namely, packaging companies such as mine," says Shinners. He then added, "In these tough economic times, brand owners will resist increasing their prices, opting instead to pass the financial burden of EPR fees onto their suppliers, such as packaging companies. Adding unnecessary fees to the cost of doing business will make a company such as mine less competitive and may cost both my firm and the city jobs."

Both Shinners and Guarnaccia met with business leaders at the Chicopee City Hall in Chicopee, MA to oppose the resolution. To support its argument that paperboard packaging is one of the few success stories around, PPC cites research conducted in 2010 by the research firm R.W. Beck that 92 percent of all Massachusetts residents have access to curbside recycling. The study also found that last year, a record-high 63 percent of paper and paperboard was recovered for recycling in the U.S., an average of 334 lbs for each man, woman and child. In fact, by 2020, the American Forest and Paper Association has set a voluntary recycling goal for paper of more than 70 percent.

A copy of Shinners' oral statement to the council is below:

Oral Statement for Jeff Shinners
EPR Resolution Hearing, June 6, 2011, 7 p.m.
Chicopee City Council, Public Works Committee

My name is Jeff Shinners and I am the president of Pioneer Packaging in Chicopee, a company that my family has operated for over 40 years. We employ 65 people and are a third-generation family-owned business. 

Like everyone here, I recognize the importance of recycling and share the city's goals to increase recovery rates so as to reduce the amount of material being sent to the landfill. And so does the paperboard packaging industry, which has spent quite a bit of money over the years building an extensive yet effective infrastructure to recover and recycle paper and paper-based packaging. 

However, there are some important discrepancies that need to be brought to your attention.

First, the resolution states that, "products and packaging are often toxic..." But this is completely false; paperboard packaging is neither toxic nor hazardous. Rather, paper recycling has one of the best success stories around! For instance, you may not know that according to research conducted in 2010 by the research firm R.W. Beck, 92 percent of all Massachusetts residents have access to curbside recycling! The study also found that last year, a record-high 63 percent of paper and paperboard was recovered for recycling in the U.S., an average of 334 pounds for each man, woman, and child. In fact, by 2020, the American Forest and Paper Association estimates that voluntary recycling rates of paper and paper-based packaging will exceed 70 percent!

With such a success story, it is preposterous that the EPR framework as outlined in this resolution does not distinguish between various forms of packaging, but rather lumps them all together. Clearly, the voluntary recycling program for paper-based packaging already works incredibly well so should be exempt from the proposed EPR program. I say this because the potentially expensive cost of managing and administering a complex EPR program will far outweigh the minor benefits of a point or two increase in paper recycling, an increase that will be achieved soon enough with our existing voluntary recycling program. 

Not only that, but any added cost for recovering recycled paper and board will no doubt be passed on to those who purchase paper-namely, packaging companies such as mine. If our costs increase, we will be forced to raise our prices, and the consumer will be the one to suffer in the end. If we instead continue to support our successful voluntary recycling program, we could avoid such price increases.

The resolution also suggests that without an EPR program in place, producers will have no incentive to design products or packaging that are recyclable. But this does not take into account that paperboard packaging IS, by its very nature, recyclable... and since most paperboard is made up of a combination of both virgin and recycled fiber, the packaging industry has a vested interest in increasing the recycling rate of paper and board. To that end, the industry has been working hard to educate consumers. In fact, we recently celebrated the fact that a few months ago the Federal Trade Commission finally green-lighted an industry-wide logo that we can now print on paperboard boxes as a way to remind consumers to recycle their packaging. This logo will help increase the recycling rate of paperboard even further over the next few years.

Moreover, the resolution we are discussing tonight suggests that our current system does not motivate producers to design smaller and lighter packages. But the packaging industry IS making considerable inroads in reducing packaging size and weight while still maintaining the reason why we use packaging in the first place: to protect a product from damage during shipping, keep the product sanitary, and provide deterrence from theft.

Further, the resolution states that through the proposed EPR program, "brand owners... would accept responsibility for the end-of-use management of their products." But we all know that in these tough economic times, brand owners will resist increasing prices, opting instead to pass the financial burden of EPR fees onto their suppliers, such as packaging companies. Adding unnecessary fees to the cost of doing business will make a company such as mine less competitive and may cost both my firm and the city jobs.
Finally, the resolution states that the City of Chicopee would be able to "advance" EPR by "favoring vendors and manufacturers who take back... packaging." This statement is incredibly vague; before any EPR resolution is ever considered acceptable, clarification needs to be provided as to how would the city would favor vendors and manufacturers and how such a take-back program would work.

In short, although I wholeheartedly support the basic tenet of EPR-to decrease landfill waste by increasing recycling rates-the resolution should not be enacted as it is currently worded because it is too broad in scope and there are just too many inaccuracies. As previously stated, the proposed resolution will be financially damaging to businesses such as mine and will ultimately result in more, not less, landfill waste. So I respectfully oppose the resolution and hope you will see fit to either rework it so that paper-based packaging is exempt from future EPR legislation or, better yet, seek to promote waste reduction by improving upon our existing voluntary community recycling programs.

Thank you for your time.