You are here
EPW Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Carper, (D-De.), second from right, and H. Fisk Johnson, CEO S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., left, shake hands as Dan Felton, executive director at the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment, right, and Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund look on. The three industry and environmental leaders were invited to testify at a March 6 EPW hearing on extended producer responsibility (EPR) in packaging. (Credit: Stefan Modrich/3E)
(Editor’s Note: 3E is expanding news coverage to provide customers with insights into topics that enable a safer, more sustainable world by protecting people, safeguarding products, and helping businesses grow. Deep Dive articles, produced by reporters, feature interviews with subject matter experts and influencers as well as exclusive analysis provided by 3E researchers and consultants).
There is a broad consensus among U.S. lawmakers, industry leaders, and environmental organizations about the need for extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies for consumer packaging. There is even consensus that such regulation should be federally standardized to avoid a patchwork of state policies that create compliance headaches for companies, many of which are already scrambling to keep up with changing global regulations.
The debate among members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee hearing on 6 March 2024 was largely concentrated on how stringent those EPR policies will be, to what extent the concerns of waste management and recyclers of plastics will be incorporated in future regulations, and how economically viable the more sustainable alternatives to plastic can be.
“The challenge as I see it,” said H. Fisk Johnson, CEO of household cleaning product maker S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., “[is] how do we practically, most economically, and least disruptively preserve the benefits that plastic has brought to humanity, while preventing the vast amounts of plastic that end up in landfills or, even worse, end up in the environment where it can affect animal and human health?”
The U.S. recycles only 9% of its plastic, despite being the world’s leading producer of plastic waste, said Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
“Progress is being made, but federal leadership — particularly from Congress — could significantly accelerate this process and serve as a catalyst for holistic system change,” Simon said in her EPW testimony. “A clear and coordinated federal framework would enable companies to deploy circular solutions more effectively while providing us an opportunity to invest in comprehensive circular solutions more broadly.”
An Uphill Push for Recycling Legislation
EPW Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Carper, (D-De.) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) both alluded to their bipartisan legislation to improve recycling infrastructure, but their most recent efforts have had mixed results.
“As the members of this committee have often heard me say more than a few times: ‘We have to find what works and do more of that,’ and these policies can work,” Carper said. “For example, the Extended Producer Responsibility program in British Columbia was able to achieve an impressive residential recycled material rate of 86.2% in 2022, up from 37.7% in 2004 before the program was implemented.”
In the U.S., the November 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law secured $350 million to strengthen recycling infrastructure and provide recycling education grants across the U.S.
In another effort to boost recycling, the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act (S.3743) was introduced in a previous session of Congress and was passed by the Senate on 28 July 2022 but did not pass the House of Representatives. A companion House bill was introduced on 12 June 2023, but it has not advanced out of committee.
Finally, the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2023 (H.R. 6159) was introduced on 1 November 2023 and has not yet been brought forth for committee consideration.
Outside of Congressional action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the following objectives regarding plastic pollution in its Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution:
- Reduce pollution during plastic production.
- Improve post-use materials management.
- Prevent trash and micro/nanoplastics from entering waterways and remove escaped trash from the environment.
It also proposed taking the following actions in its draft strategy:
- Improve the design of plastic products to provide more reuse and refill opportunities.
- Increase solid waste collection and ensure that solid waste management does not adversely impact communities.
- Produce fewer single-use, unrecyclable, and frequently littered plastic products, and reduce pollution from plastic production facilities.
- Increase public awareness of ways to reduce plastic and other trash in waterways.
Four states have finalized EPR legislation for packaging, including California, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon. Maryland and Illinois have developed need assessments to determine the feasibility of future EPR legislation.
Industry Adoption
Capito said the prospect of increasingly complex international environmental regulations for U.S. multinational corporations and the potential for 50 different EPR state regulatory frameworks would present a burden she would prefer U.S. manufacturers avoid.
“Acknowledging our continued reliance on plastic and working to prevent plastic pollution are not mutually exclusive,” Capito said, adding that certain EPR or circularity mandates could have unintended consequences.
Simon and other supporters of a more robust regulatory approach argue that adopting EPR measures can produce significant economic benefits. A transition from a disposable economy to a circular one where the life cycle of products is extended and reused or repurposed by 2040 could result in savings of up to $4 trillion in direct, environmental, and social costs, according to a survey by Daniel Kaffine of the University of Colorado-Boulder and Patrick O'Reilly of West Virginia University.
The level of industry adoption from major producers also indicates that progress toward a more sustainable manufacturing future is possible, Simon added.
Colgate-Palmolive, for example, is transforming toothpaste packaging through its recyclable tube technology, something it is sharing with other companies and industry stakeholders. The Coca-Cola Company delivered 14% of its total beverage volume via reusable packaging in 2022. On 11 February 2022, it announced a goal to have at least 25% of its beverage volume worldwide sold through reuse systems by 2030.
Dan Felton, executive director at the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN), said his organization supports EPR solutions that are results-based, efficient, and equitable. Establishing consistent definitions of what is recyclable in each jurisdiction and finding effective methods for data collection are crucial for a successful EPR program, Felton said.
“Sometimes the recycling community has not been included in discussions about something that is going to directly impact them,” Felton told 3E. “It’s about making sure you’ve got all the stakeholders involved and everybody participating.”
----------
About the author: Stefan Modrich is a Washington, D.C.-based reporter for 3E. He covers the latest developments in environmental health and safety policy and regulation. Modrich previously wrote for S&P Global Market Intelligence, The Arizona Republic, and Chicago Tribune. He is an alumnus of Arizona State University and the University of Zagreb.
Top