Skip to Content

[X] CLOSEMENU

Reducing our Way out of Recycling: Flexible Packaging is here, but is this a Good Thing? Part 2

April 16, 2014

Where do we go from here?

OK, so now what? Not surprisingly, we see this as another signpost that we need extended producer responsibility (EPR), which makes manufacturers responsible for green design and reducing, reusing and recycling their packaging. The companies that put packaging into the marketplace need to have a plan for where that packaging is going once consumers are finished with it.

The plan should follow the cradle-to-cradle model of designing packaging to become either biological nutrients (biodegradable, compostable, etc.) or technical nutrients (metals/petroleum-based polymers, etc.) at end-of-life. The plan must include how packaging will be collected and processed into either bio-nutrients to grow plants, food and farms; or tech-nutrients to grow products and industry. Finally and most importantly, the plan has to include how companies will finance the deployment of collection, processing and outreach strategies and technologies – at scale nationwide – to ensure that 90%+ of the packaging is utilized.

At the Sustainability in Packaging Conference, Dick Lilly said, “Without EPR, it won’t be possible to fund full recovery of less valuable plastics… Sustainability in packaging requires that we invest to improve our MRFs to a) capture packaging that now goes into the garbage because we can’t process it, b) develop systems to recover new kinds of packaging – usually plastic – so it can be recycled as feedstock for new products, and c) reduce processing yield loss.” He asked, “Can EPR make this possible?”

We believe that it can. We also believe that without EPR, we will continue to plunge headfirst toward the alternative being proposed by many consumer goods and waste management companies, which is to sift flexible packaging out of the garbage and pelletize it into fuel that can be used in any industrial boiler in the United States – without proper emissions controls to protect public health from the toxic chemicals caused by burning plastic.

 Guess who is also complicit in this scheme? According to Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives: “The U.S. EPA recently created a toxic and deceptive loophole around Clean Air Act health protections, allowing the deregulation of waste burning in literally hundreds of thousands of industrial facilities across the country. If these facilities burn waste under this loophole, they will not be required to meet federal emission control standards and permitting processes for incinerators – creating a disastrous back door way to get around regulations designed to protect public health.”

For obvious reasons, we prefer the development of a unified packaging system that holds companies responsible for the design choices they make, and ensures that they create cradle-to-cradle systems for producing, using and managing packaging. Properly designed EPR initiatives can help us achieve packaging systems that generate a wide variety of economic, social and ecological value.

We will continue to explore what an EPR packaging system could look like that meets these values in our blog over the next few months. Stay tuned! For a look at NGO principles on packaging-EPR, check out the CRADLE2 Coalition’s Packaging Platform


Matt Prindiville is the Associate Director for UPSTREAM, a national environmental organization dedicated to creating a healthy, sustainable, and equitable society by addressing the root causes of waste. Its mission is to organize for product-focused environmental policies that advance sustainable production and consumption, and good governance.

Guest Blog’s represent the opinion of the writer and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. 

Comments (0)


Add a Comment





Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: