by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Marketing and Communications Director
Consumers use one trillion single-use food and beverage packaging items in the United States each year – which make up nearly seventy percent of the litter found in the environment. According to Upstream, an environmental nonprofit, resources to manufacture these products include 10% of harvested wood, 20% of mined aluminum, 40% of plastic, and 50% of glass.
That’s the problem that the burgeoning reuse economy seeks to solve by establishing systems for consumers to purchase products in reusable packaging and then return for refill at stores, restaurants, or entertainment venues. But how does Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fit in? This question was explored on a recent webinar moderated by Upstream’s new policy director, Sydney Harris (formerly of PSI) where Will Grassle, PSI’s Associate for Policy & Programs, was one of four panelists.
Panelist Jennifer Navarra of Zero Waste Hawai’i described how the state was able to prioritize reuse in their packaging EPR bill because of the lack of existing recycling infrastructure. “It doesn’t make sense to invest in the recycling system because we don’t have it,” she said. “It makes sense for us to start with reuse and reduction.”
McKenna Morrigan of Seattle Public Utilities agreed that reuse should be included in packaging EPR legislation, as it was in Washington’s bill. “Some of the arguments against making reusables subject to fees is that they are a small part of the packaging universe,” she said. “But if the future of reuse goes where we want it to, we need to make sure that it is part of the EPR program. If it is left out, there will be a structural problem with how the program will operate in the future.”
PSI has long advocated for reuse. In late 2022, we hosted a series of stakeholder meetings to discuss how EPR could introduce and strengthen reuse, which are being implemented into PSI’s framework policy elements for packaging EPR. We recommend that:
- Reusables should be defined as products that are reused for their original purpose in their original form.
- Reusables should be a covered material if a robust recycling program is in place in the state.
- If a robust recycling program is not in place, covered materials should not initially include reusables; however, they should be considered in the future as recycling infrastructures evolve.
- If reusables are covered, funding allocation should cover reuse infrastructure and services.
- A needs assessment should be required to analyze existing reuse operators and infrastructure and determine opportunities and gaps to expand reuse throughout the state.
- Eco-modulated fees should be lower for reusables than other covered materials.
- Outreach and education requirements should include materials that identify which covered materials are reusable and how to reuse them.
- The annual report should analyze reusable displacement – the amount of reusables returned and/or refilled versus the amount entering the market.
- If reusables are covered, a reuse operator should be included on the advisory council.
- When reusables are covered, manufacturers should only pay when they enter the market.
- The same metrics that are used for other packaging materials should be used for reusables.
- The state should have the ability to adjust reuse targets over time.
“There are really two paths,” Grassle summarized. “In states with robust recycling systems, reusable packaging should be a covered material at the start, and therefore, the program should cover costs relating to improvements in reuse infrastructure and services. In states without robust recycling, the state should consider leaving reusables out of covered materials for the first plan cycle and focus on improving their recycling system but should consider including reusables in future plan cycles. In either case, the statute should clarify that expanding reuse is a priority and one of the program’s ultimate goals.”
Most of these recommendations align with Upstream’s recently launched Principles for Reuse/Refill in EPR and DRS (deposit return systems). And they make their way into legislation recently introduced in several states.
However, David Allaway of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality cautioned that statutes must include specific targets to hold PROs accountable. “We can’t repeat the mistake that the recycling community has made for the past 30 years…treating recycling like magic fairy dust,” he said. “There are cases where reuse does not make environmental sense.” He cited the example of the aluminum container that Loop designed for Häagen-Dazs, which is reusable but also has a high negative environmental impact.
Upstream’s stated goal is to reimagine packaging as a service rather than a product to facilitate 30% of consumable goods sold in reusable formats in the U.S. and Canada by 2030. As states increasingly consider legislation to address packaging waste, it just makes sense to build principles of reuse into EPR laws.