From the Publisher: The PVC Debate Rages On
James Wagner
It may seem scary, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
By James Wagner, PublisherCalifornia’s proposed PVC-packaging ban faltered under opposition from the Personal Care Products Council and 16 other trade groups. But it will be back.
Last month, a six-page bill caused quite a commotion in California. Under ordinary circumstances, the tiny amendment would have been relegated to a summer intern, but AB 2505 was by no means ordinary.
The bill would have banned PVC from use in packaging. Medical, pharmaceutical, and veterinary packages were exempt, along with petrochemicals and a few other special applications such as protective packaging for building materials and storage containers that do not come in contact with the general public.
Cosmetics and personal care items were not on the exempt list. Had the bill passed, PVC packages would no longer be legal in the state of California. As it is, the Senate Appropriations Committee tabled AB 2505. The move may kill the measure, although it is likely to reappear in the next legislative session.
Many packagers argue that banning PVC is a good idea. In fact, more than a few beauty packagers eschew PVC altogether. That’s a decision every packager is entitled to make. The problem with AB 2505 is that it takes the decision out of the industry’s hands. And, it has a few draconian provisions that should not become law.
The provision that will have the most dramatic effect is article 25214.27(b), which would assess a $2500 penalty for each violation. What constitutes a violation would be up to a court to decide.
Then there are all of those exemptions. If PVC is so potentially dangerous, why allow it for use in motor oil and fuel additives?
To its credit, the committee removed the most contentious provision, which called for container manufacturers to furnish proof that any plastic package complied with the bill. Imagine that bureaucratic quagmire.
Given the language and potential for misinterpretation and red tape, it’s not surprising that most trade associations, including the Personal Care Products Council, spoke out against the bill.
Interesting, though, that in their letter arguing against AB 2505, the 17 trade associations that represent everything from cosmetics to groceries to toys did not rail against the strongest provisions against PVC. The bill claims that the material (1) is an environmental and human health risk throughout its life cycle; (2) that vinyl chloride is a carcinogen; (3) that many packages contain phthalates; (4) that the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse of the Council of State Governments believes PVC packages have a high incidence rate of lead and cadmium heavy-metal contamination; (5) that burning PVC emits dioxins; and (6) that recycling is at very low level.
There are packagers who agree with every statement. Others do not. Until each point has been more clearly resolved, the statements should not be incorporated into state law and made into a precedent for other legislatures. No matter what your stance on PVC, the freedom to make an informed choice is as important as the ability to do the right thing for the environment.
That said, clarity on all the issues surrounding PVC will not come soon. The material has been awash in controversy for decades. Plus, for many companies, it is a functional, inexpensive material with a long history of use. Choose to use it or not use it, but don’t let state governments make that decision for you.