Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Producer Responsibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates producer responsibility substitute; hearing carried to Dec. 12 for further stakeholder work
Summary
A major substitute to create a packaging producer responsibility framework drew cross-sector testimony. Sponsor outlined a single- PRO model, toxics bans, QR-code labeling, and a 50% plastics source-reduction goal; industry urged a needs assessment first and warned of cost and implementation risks. The committee carried the bill to Dec. 12 for more stakeholder work.
The committee devoted substantial time to a substituted producer responsibility/packaging stewardship bill (EPR substitute) that the sponsor described as a synthesis of programs in Colorado, California and Minnesota. Key features the sponsor highlighted included a revised definition of 'producer' with exemptions for small producers, exclusion of "advanced recycling" from the bill's definition of recycling, a ban list for certain toxic chemicals in packaging, a single producer responsibility organization (PRO) for the first five years, shortened timelines for producers to join the PRO, a mandatory needs assessment overseen by DEP, and smart QR codes on packaging to help consumers access recyclability information.
Environmental witnesses praised stronger source-reduction goals and toxics restrictions. Dr. Phoebe Stapleton, an associate professor at Rutgers University, presented scientific testimony on micro- and nanoplastics, citing evidence of microscopic plastic particles in human tissues and highlighting research linking particle deposition with inflammatory outcomes in some human and animal studies. Beyond Plastics and other groups urged ambitious source reduction and stronger toxics language.
Industry and trade associations urged caution. Representatives from the Chemistry Council, the National Waste & Recycling Association, Ameripen, Consumer Brands and the Plastics Industry Association asked the committee to require an independent needs assessment before enshrining statutory performance targets, to protect existing contracts and infrastructure, and to clarify reimbursement and fee-setting mechanisms. They also warned that aggressive source-reduction or toxics mandates could raise consumer costs and disrupt supply chains.
Chairman Smith paused the hearing after extensive testimony and carried the matter to Dec. 12, inviting written submissions and bilateral stakeholder meetings in the interim so the committee and interested parties can reconcile technical and fiscal implementation details.
