Business Groups Continue to Raise Concerns Over Proposed Packaging Reduction and Restriction Mandates

27
Jan
2025

 

Business Groups Continue to Raise Concerns Over Proposed Packaging Reduction and Restriction Mandates

Proposed Legislation Will Increase Consumer Costs in New York State

ALBANY—The Business Council of New York State Inc. and numerous business groups and associations continue to oppose the "Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act" (S.146 (Harckham)/ A.1749 (Glick)) as unworkable and more aggressive than EPR laws in other states, including Oregon and Washington. The material bans and use reduction clauses will adversely impact New York businesses and consumers alike.

The legislation significantly restricts the sale of plastic packaging and other targeted materials and requires the dramatic source reduction of all packaging types, among other excessive or unnecessary provisions.

“The Business Council and other business interests have provided extensive recommendations regarding legislation to enhance recycling and promote material use reduction. Despite the bill including two suggestions, the majority are not reflected, which will cost businesses and consumers,” said Ken Pokalsky, Vice President of Government Affairs. “We believe this legislation falls well short of our objective of having a fair, workable, consumer-protective packaging and material management system.”

Costs to Consumers

An updated study by researchers at York University in Toronto on the potential direct consumer cost impacts and overall economic impacts of a broad EPR law in New York projected total consumer cost increases of more than $1 billion annually and a direct household cost increase of more than $900 over five years. The overall cost of New York’s economy is projected to be more than three times greater. 

Importantly, the study notes “. . . the impact of EPR on consumer prices is not uniform across all demographics.  Low-income households are disproportionately affected as they have limited ability to absorb price increases.”  The study was done for The Business Council’s research affiliate, the Public Policy Institute.

 

Questions for Bill Sponsors

The Business Council and other interested business groups believe this legislation raises significant questions about its achievability and cost, which should concern legislators and consumers. They include but are not limited to:

 

  • With project delays in other sectors due to rising costs, supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and other factors, all of which the material reuse industry will not be immune to, how would this legislation ensure that there will be sufficient processing and production capacity to remanufacture all the additional materials that will be collected and brought back to market, especially on the bill’s mandated schedule? 
  • Compliance with this and other states’ EPR laws will impose significant costs on consumer goods companies, redesign packaging, retool production lines, reimburse municipalities for material management costs, etc. These costs will invariably be reflected in increased consumer costs. Given the statewide and nationwide concerns about inflation and cost of living, is this a good time to increase the costs of goods and services being provided to the public?
  • How will this legislation impact the availability and cost of specific products, including those packaged for consumer convenience (e.g., used in school lunches) and packaged for sale in smaller urban retail stores? What consumers will be most impacted by these factors?
  • What will be the impact of material bans, and material use reduction mandates on the integrity of packaged goods, from food products to consumer electronics and others?
  • Other states, including Colorado, Oregon, and Minnesota, give packaging producers a key role in designing their EPR programs. Still, they are largely left out of the process under the New York legislation.  Why?  Isn’t their technical expertise essential to designing a workable program?
  • The bill requires all packaging producers to reduce their use of packaging material by 30% in 12 years on either a “companywide” or “unit weight” basis. Is that reduction mandate based on any real-world assessment of the impact on packaging integrity, especially for packaging categories (e.g., aluminum cans) that have already undergone significant material use reduction?
  • Advanced recycling technology is advancing rapidly, with more than 100 technologies under development or being deployed in more than 300 facilities worldwide. Why does this legislation preclude consideration of many or most of these and future technologies (e.g., any form of “chemical conversion”) from the definition of “recycling.”
  • The legislation emphasizes a “reuse and refill” program for packaging. What widespread reuse and refill programs are currently in place or envisioned by the bill sponsors?

 

Francisco Marte, President of the New York Bodegas Association, said-

“Packaged foods from single-slice cheese to meat to beverages would be eliminated by this bill – all products lining the shelves of our small businesses that serve our lowest income communities. While it might be in vogue in some quarters to pay hundreds of dollars more than we already are for everyday products, the small businesses in the communities we represent and the people they serve simply cannot afford it. We hope that lawmakers in Albany hear our plea – don’t move this bill so we can make ends meet.”

José Eduardo Giraldo, President of Abetx International Brokers, Inc, based in Jackson Heights, Queens, and former President at the Queens Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said

“Raising costs by more than $600 per household annually by imposing this bill as currently constructed is too high a cost and will hit lower-income families and small businesses the hardest. We all agree that it’s the right policy for producers to share in the costs of recycling. We must find a way forward that includes deploying the most advanced technologies while meeting people where they are so that we reduce the flow of waste and limit price increases for both consumers and the small businesses that make up the fabric of our communities.”

Nelson Eusebio, National Supermarket Association, said -

“New York is contending with an affordability crisis.  Imposing $600 per household in new costs and adding hundreds of dollars a year to New Yorkers’ grocery bills while banning the everyday products they rely upon is unacceptable. The New York legislature must put a halt to this bill. We all want to reduce waste, but raising costs while harming food safety and reliability in the process is not the right path forward.”