Break Free from Plastic

EPR can be a helpful framework to address the impacts of plastics across its entire life cycle, but only if it is done correctly, is seen as a tool to address all aspects of the plastic packaging crisis, and is adopted alongside other policies that address upstream plastic issues. Otherwise, EPR will perpetuate the problem. Because EPR policies are relatively new in the United States, state-level initiative is critical to rapidly and efficiently surface successful EPR models and approaches. It is important to learn if EPR can demonstrate success in packaging reduction in at least one state. Our top recommendations for developing EPR policies can be found below. We also encourage you to reference Beyond Plastics and Just Zero’s Ten Principles of Effective EPR guide which detail other key recommendations for EPR programs.

Recommendations for Policymakers Developing Circular Policy & EPR for Packaging Policies:

It is impossible to empty a bathtub while the water is still running: Estimates by the OECD show that if current trends continue, global production of plastics is expected to increase to 736 million tons (Mt). This is a 70% increase compared to 2020 levels. Those plastics which are dumped, littered, or otherwise inadequately disposed of will increase by 50%. Meanwhile the global recycling rate of 9% is not expected to grow at the same rate due to the extensive sorting required in order to maintain the quality of the end product. The only way to effectively tackle this problem is to implement EPR policies according to the waste hierarchy; specifically, reducing production of plastic packaging by 50% by 2035. This can be achieved through establishing a reduction fund covering all residential and commercial packaging waste to be administered by PROs and concurrent mandates for upscaling reuse and refill systems, including returnable container laws, known as bottle bills or DRS. Minimum standards for reusability and refillability should be proposed in rulemaking. Those plastics that continue to be produced should also be designed to achieve a 70% recycling rate within the same timeframe. Reductions should begin with the most toxic and easily replaceable packaging materials, including:

(1) Polyvinyl chloride including polyvinylidene chloride;

(2) Polystyrene;

(3) Polycarbonate.

(4) Melamine formaldehyde

(5) Opaque or pigmented polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

(6) Polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG)

Plastic chemicals, including additives, are a major public health issue. The greatest impacts are on communities living on the frontlines of plastic production and disposal facilities (recycling facilities, incinerators, and landfills) but microplastics are also in all of our bodies, slowly leaching toxic chemicals into our bodies and disrupting tissues. Thus, we recommend prohibiting the following chemicals from being present in any packaging:

(1) Ortho-phthalates;

(2) Bisphenols;

(3) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS);

(4) Heavy metals and compounds, including lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium,

mercury, and antimony and compounds, but excluding copper phthalocyanine

(chemical 53 abstracts service registry number 147-14-8)

(5) Benzophenone and its derivatives;

(6) Halogenated flame retardants;

(7) Perchlorate;

(8) Formaldehyde;

(9) Toluene; and

(10) UV 328 (2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-di-tert-pentylphenol)

(11) Oxo-degradable additives

Loopholes turn into potholes during implementation: ‘Greenwashed’ laws and regulations that seem to be managing an environmental issue are really serving as loopholes for industry to either continue business-as-usual or make it worse. For example, Sec 42060(3)(A) of California’s proposed SB 54 regulations can result in broad exemptions for covered materials in rulemaking, weakening the original intent of the law. Similarly, the definition of recycling must exclude technologies that generate greenhouse gases, hazardous waste and toxic air and water emissions, as is true of so-called “chemical recycling” technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis, and solvolysis. They are not real recycling and should not be counted as such. Additionally, landfilling, incineration, and/or composting of compostable plastics should be explicitly excluded from being considered recycling.

It is also important to have honest accounting methods for reporting percentages of recycled content. The best way is to track physical recycled content via segregation and controlled blending, as stipulated in Sec. 260.13 of the FTC Green Guides. Deceptive accounting methods such as credit-based mass balance and book-and-claim are deceptive to consumers, and can allow fuels produced from ‘chemical recycling’ to be counted as recycled content, and can disadvantage mechanical recycling. EPR policies should, therefore, not allow any such deceptive accounting methods for recycling rate or recycled content calculations.

Producers need specific statutory requirements: While eco-modulated fees alone are insufficient to achieve reductions in plastic packaging production, they do provide funding for state agencies to administer the program, and reimburse municipalities and taxpayers for the cost of waste reduction, refill, reuse, and recycling. The assessment of fees and programs to reduce the production of single-use packaging should be transparently undertaken by the PROs with strong oversight and accountability mechanisms from the state agency and the public. New Offices of the Inspector General should be established to ensure oversight. The state agency must also be transparent in the promulgation or revision of regulations, with mandates for frequent public hearings and comment periods.