US Policies and Practices in Respect of Packaging Waste - Essay Example

Running head: US POLICIES PACKAGING WASTE US Policies and Practices in Respect of Packaging Waste [Department & College or Packaging Waste Disposal The existence of different laws in the various states and local governments of the US, in relation to packaging and packaging waste, causes considerable difficulty to manufacturers and customers. This is a very serious problem that urgently demands a solution. Packaging is indispensable in the distribution of food, food products, commodities, beverages, and a wide range of products to the people. However, packaging has emerged as a major threat to the environment; because of the fact that many of the packaging materials have been found to be harmful to the environment. Packaging poses a major problem to the environment in the absence of litter space, landfill or dump yard provision (Ackerman, 1997). Several states have passed laws to deal with the environmental problems posed by packaging. However, many of these laws had been enacted without taking all the complexities involved into consideration. Therefore, many of the packaging laws fail to protect the environment. The variation of these laws from state to state compels the manufacturers and distributors of goods to incur additional expenditure in complying with these provisions (Schneeweiss, 1996. p. 443). In just one particular year, namely, 1989; several state and local legislatures had passed nearly 650 bills and ordinances to address packaging and its effects on the environment. This veritable plethora of bills and ordinances have confounded the legal position; and created a situation, in which packaging requirements differ drastically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One method of coping up with this situation is to adopt legislation like the Source Reduction Council of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG); which had been proposed the Model Toxics in Packaging Law (MTPL), as a model law at the federal level. Such legislation could establish uniformity in the packaging laws of the various states (Schneeweiss, 1996. p. 447). In the US, the CONEG established the MTPL, which requires manufacturers and distributors to discontinue the intentional use of cadmium, lead, mercury, and hexavalent chromium in packaging and packaging components. 19 states had implemented the model legislation proposed by MTPL. This legislation aims to phase out the sum total concentration of these four metals by 100 parts per million. Under the provisions of the Packaging Directive, packaging components that are RoHS compliant have not been exempted from the application of MTPL (Millar, Walker, Keller, & Heckman, 1 September, 2007. p. 30). The CONEG’s model legislation prohibits the intentional use of these four metals in the packaging and packaging components. However, companies generally ignore this condition. For instance, many companies mistakenly assume that not exceeding 100 ppm of lead would comply with the MTPL; which is incorrect. In some recent tests, it was revealed that there were a number of incidents of packaging; wherein these provisions of the act had not been complied with (Millar, Walker, Keller, & Heckman, 1 September, 2007. p. 30). The MTPL was aimed at reducing the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium in packaging material. These metals are harmful to human health. By the year 1994, eighteen states had adopted this legislation. The CONEG proposed the MTPL in the year 1990, with an aim to reduce and eliminate mercury, lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium from packaging materials (Schneeweiss, 1996. p. 447). The legislation relating to packaging is limited to packaging; and not the products employed in the process. Some of these are coatings, inks, and labels; which have been identified as the cause of serious health problems in the management of solid waste. These substances have a number of harmful effects, like poisoning landfill leachates, and contaminating incinerator emissions and ash residues (Schneeweiss, 1996. p. 451). In addition, the MTPL regulates the presence of these metals in the packaging components sold or used in the states that have implemented this law. Furthermore, it prohibits the addition of any of these metals to packaging components or to packaging. The MTPL has clearly specified the dates, by which the total concentration of these metals, as measured in weight in parts per million; is to be reduced in certain packaging components (Schneeweiss, 1996. p. 451). This legislation provided immense relief to the local and state legislatures, which were very much agreeable to accepting these uniform regulations. The business community had also welcomed the MTPL, and the uniformity that it signified. This incident serves to highlight the importance of federal packaging legislation (Schneeweiss, 1996. p. 451). In California, the converting industry is proposing new waste disposal measures. During the period from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, landfill space had been a major concern for the US government. Such concerns resulted in the enactment of several regulations by the individual states and local bodies, in order to deal with the disposal of packaging waste. Nearly 80% of the solid waste from packaging had been disposed of in landfills in the US. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) had permitted new landfills across the US. However, this move attracted widespread opposition from neighborhood and grassroots activists, who vehemently resisted the establishment of new landfills (Flexible Packaging & Waste Disposal Laws: A US Perspective, 1 August, 2003). These developments suggested the effective use of the extant waste disposal mechanisms. The RCRA granted wide authority to the Environmental Protection Agency, so that the EPA could regulate the management of solid and hazardous waste across the US. However, the states are encouraged by the Act, through its Subtitle D, to assume primary responsibility in this context. As such, it is the responsibility of the states to regulate the disposal of non – hazardous solid wastes in their jurisdiction (Flexible Packaging & Waste Disposal Laws: A US Perspective, 1 August, 2003). Thus, it becomes obvious that a federal law is required to regulate packaging waste. The existing system, whereby packaging laws are enacted and implemented by the individual states and local governments has to be changed. The present system causes confusion and unnecessarily increases costs, on account of vast divergence in the packaging laws between the states and local governments. List of References Ackerman, F. (1997). Environmental Impacts of Packaging in the U.S. and Mexico. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2n2/pdf/ackerman.pdf Flexible Packaging & Waste Disposal Laws: A US Perspective. (1 August, 2003). Paper, Film & Foil Converter , Vol. 77, Issue 8 . Millar, S. A., Walker, J., Keller, & Heckman. (1 September, 2007). Reduce & Comply. Paper, Film & Foil Converter , Vol. 77, Issue 8. Schneeweiss, J. (1996). Putting Packaging Waste in Its Place: The Case for Federal Legislation. Virginia Environmental Law Journal , Vol. 15, pp. 443 – 467. Read More