By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director
Extended Producer
Responsibility for packaging is getting the attention of consumer packaged
goods companies. Some are using their trade associations to argue
for bigger government and higher taxes to increase packaging recycling.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) released a
report (written by the consulting firm
SAIC) in September highly critical of EPR for packaging. On October 26,
the new trade association AMERIPEN adopted an internal policy: “We
are committed to increasing recycling and recovery rates in the U.S. through
collaboration and teamwork among key stakeholders, by bringing more efficiency
into our existing system, and incorporating best practices, all without the
financial and administrative burden of an EPR system.”
More on both of these
positions in coming weeks. For now, you should know that the GMA
report’s analysis and conclusion that “U.S. communities and states that
have instituted non-EPR policies can achieve high recycling rates within a
reasonable cost…” is based on a single data point – from Ramsey
County MN – and Ramsey County does not concur with GMA’s conclusions.
Some highlights from the
Ramsey County analysis:
- The report only cites recycling rates for three jurisdictions -- Ramsey County, Minnesota, and California -- and only cites one cost figure, the $156 net cost for residential recycling in communities in Ramsey County.
- Ramsey County does NOT concur with the conclusions, which are not adequately supported in the report.
- Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has made support of product stewardship/EPR its top priority in solid waste policy.
One thing the GMA report does
admit: EPR is about fairness, putting responsibility on those who
profit from and use products and associated packaging: producers and
consumers. And EPR is “inherently fairer” (than making taxpayers
pay).
[For a copy of Ramsey County's 8-page response, email info@productpolicy.org ]
