New York packaging reduction bill sparks debate over impact on small businesses

08 Jun 2023 --- According to trade associations, New York’s Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Bill (S.4246A/A.5322A) – currently being pushed in the State Legislature – would be costly to small businesses and consumers rather than lucrative. 

The legislation, which was introduced jointly by New York State senator Pete Harckham and assembly member Deborah J. Glick, will institute Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and require companies with a net annual income of over US$1 million to reduce consumer packaging, improve recycling efforts and help update recycling infrastructure. 

Additionally, companies will be expected to create and maintain reusable and refill infrastructure, support municipal recycling programs financially and reduce the toxins in their packaging.

“New York State’s beverage companies have been working closely with lawmakers and environmental groups for more than three years to implement a best-in-class EPR system – one that is funded by producers and designed to create a circular economy for all recyclable materials,” the American Beverage Association tells PackagingInsights. 

“But this goal will not be reached with S.4246A/A.5322A. As amended, the bill will not achieve its environmental objectives and would be costly to small businesses and consumers alike. Beverage companies are eager to continue to work with lawmakers on proven ways that have worked elsewhere to improve recycling of all materials.” 

Unfair and unworkable?
The Business Council representing the interests of over 3,000 member companies “strongly opposes” this legislation, arguing the recently amended bill disregards practical considerations and will adversely impact consumer choices and costs. 

“Its initial version would have required the producers of packaging and paper products to set up a ‘producer responsibility organization’ to take responsibility for managing and financing material recovery, processing and recycling, and meet targets for reduced use of non-reusable packaging, recycling of materials and paper products, and post-consumer recycled content,” it states.

According to the American Beverage Association the current form of the bill deviates from the principles of well-designed EPR policy.“As amended, however, the bill takes a very different approach. It has a new focus on restricting the sale of plastic packaging and one-use products and requires source reduction of all packaging types. In doing so, the bill disregards practical considerations and will adversely impact consumer choices and costs.”

The Business Council explains that the amended bill in its current form creates two new state entities – one to manage recycling, reduction and reuse programs and a second with authority to enforce compliance. 

While the municipal payments would offset current municipal expenditures for managing packaging and single-use plastic product wastes, there is no requirement that municipalities pass on any benefit to municipal residents through tax reductions, the council elaborates.

“The bill establishes mandatory source reduction, including those singling out plastic packaging, and recycling rate goals that are not consistent with other states and not based on any real-world data. It also imposes packaging reuse requirements that would be costly and even more packaging-intensive,” the council shares.

“While the bill imposes absolute bans on the presence of 12 chemicals and three plastic types in packaging and single-use plastic products, it also creates a task force to make recommendations on additional substance bands, with the Department of Environmental Conservation mandated to adopt such recommendations by rule.”

Overall, The Business Council believes that this legislation falls “well short” of the objective of having a fair, workable, consumer-protective packaging and material management system.

In support of the bill
Leaders from the environmental organizations Beyond Plastics, Only One, Westchester Alliance for Sustainable Solutions, League of Women Voters Westchester, Bedford 2030, Grassroots Environmental Education, and NYCD16 Indivisible delivered over 18,000 petition signatures in support of the bill and are campaigning for it. 

The groups are urging the Senate floor for a vote to pass the Packaging Reduction & Recycling Infrastructure Act (S4246/A5322) and Bigger Better Bottle Bill (S237/A6353) before the legislative session adjourns on Friday.

“It is time to turn off the tap of single-use plastic packaging and reduce toxics in packaging. This comprehensive bill does just that while protecting environmental justice communities,” says Dawn Henry at Beyond Plastics.Sen. Harckham with Judith Enck of Beyond Plastics, assembly member Glick, and other environmental advocates at a press conference recently.

Meanwhile, Brad Lander, New York City comptroller, wrote a letter of support for the two bills emphasizing that the legislation would lower the financial burdens New York City taxpayers face for exporting waste while mitigating the hazards plastics pose to human health and the environment.

According to Lander, the EPR could bar the taxpayers from footing the cost of collection, sortation and management of packaging waste. In addition, the Bigger Bottle Bill would update New York’s 40-year-old container deposit law by increasing the deposit and expanding the list of containers to increase the bottle redemption rate from 64% to 90%.

“The New York City comptroller is responsible for taking the long-term view on our city, and few things are as long term as plastic waste and forever chemicals like PFAS. The cost to manage these waste materials is significant and will be a recurring issue for generations unless more of this waste is diverted from landfills or prevented altogether,” writes Lander.

“The producers of polluting packaging should be responsible for the recycling and disposal of their products, not taxpayers.”

Amendment concerns
The American Beverage Association tells us that as amended, the current form of the bill deviates from the principles of well-designed EPR policy, with specific concerns including:

• Provisions to ban the sale of all non-recyclable packaging in the state two years after enactment would jeopardize access to grocery, personal care and home improvement products, harming consumers and small businesses.

• Banning the sale of certain packaging would disproportionately impact low-income consumers, limit choices of products and disrupt jobs for production line workers.

• The bill, as amended, does not take into account the proactive measures taken by the beverage industry to reduce packaging while requiring 50% reductions over 12 years following enactment.

• State assessment of fees for producers also runs foul of the intent behind producer responsibility – removing substantial incentives for producers to participate.

By Radhika Sikaria