New York's Packaging and Recycling Infrastructure Act aims to ban certain plastics and shift waste management costs to producers through an Extended Producer Responsibility system. Farmers and businesses oppose the bill, citing concerns about food safety packaging restrictions and increased costs during economic hardship.
- The bill creates an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system that imposes fees on large companies using single-use plastic packaging to fund recycling programs
- NY Farm Bureau warns the EPR program could increase costs for dairy farms, wineries, and food producers already struggling with economic downturn and inflation
- The legislation seeks to ban 12 types of chemicals and 3 types of plastic commonly used in packaging to address plastic waste
- Opponents request more time and impact studies before implementation, citing uncertainties about producer responsibility organizations and out-of-state packaging
- Environmental advocates argue plastic production is projected to increase by 2030, making urgent action necessary to divert waste from landfills
Opponents of New York's Packaging and Recycling Infrastructure Act are expressing concerns about the proposed legislation, which aims to ban certain chemicals and plastic packaging while shifting the responsibility for managing plastic waste from taxpayers to the producers, according to Spectrum News 1. Business owners and packaging producers argue that elected officials are rushing the process, and they raise several issues with the bill.
The legislation includes creating an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system that would impose fees on large companies using single-use plastic products for packaging. These fees would fund local recycling programs and infrastructure improvements, part of the state's efforts to tackle plastic waste as outlined in its climate action plan.
New York Farm Bureau President David Fisher is among those opposing the bill. He warns that the EPR program could adversely affect New York farms and food producers. He highlights concerns about packaging restrictions required for food safety, which could lead to increased costs for dairy farms, wineries, cideries, and other food and beverage producers. These businesses are already grappling with the challenges of a downturn in the agricultural economy and rising inflation.
Fisher emphasizes that farm producers are unprepared to take on the responsibilities associated with the significant change in how the state manages waste. He calls for more time and an impact study to be conducted before implementing such a substantial transformation, pointing out the uncertainties surrounding the creation of producer responsibility organizations, the overall costs, and the handling of out-of-state packaging.
Meanwhile, supporters of the legislation argue that the urgency of addressing the plastic waste issue cannot be overstated. Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, contends that the problem has grown worse over the years, with plastic production projected to increase significantly by 2030. Enck believes that diverting more plastic waste from landfills and incentivizing manufacturers to reduce their packaging is long overdue.
The bill also seeks to ban 12 types of chemicals and three types of plastic commonly used in packaging. Assembly sponsor Deborah Glick points out that packaging is a major contributor to plastic waste, which is a universal problem impacting homes and communities, and it comes at a significant cost.
Governor Kathy Hochul had previously included provisions for an EPR system in her executive budget. However, the bill introduced by Glick and Senate Environmental Conservation Committee chair Pete Harckham fell out of the final budget. Nevertheless, they continue to work on refining the legislation and aim to prioritize its adoption in the next legislative session.
The opposition suggests that a balance should be struck between restrictions and adopting new technologies to advance plastic recycling. In contrast, proponents of the legislation, like Sarah Paiji Yoo, co-founder and CEO of Blueland, a company specializing in plastic-free cleaning products, support the bill. They see it as an opportunity to hold businesses accountable for their plastic use and encourage them to provide more sustainable packaging options to consumers.
