Issue No.11 MANDATORY MINIMUM RECYCLED CONTENT KEY POINTS: Mandatory minimum recycled content has been advocated as a means of reducing waste, promoting efficient resource use and providing a guaranteed market for recycled materials. Under such a policy, governments would legislate (or "mandate") that a certain percentage of recycled materials should be contained in each package produced. Mandatory minimum recycled content would not necessarily produce environmental benefits. It may compromise the quality and performance of packaging. It would also be difficult to "police" and measure and could lead to fraudulent claims. Design technology and innovation may also suffer because the range of marketing opportunities could be restricted due to "forced" end markets. A mandatory policy has the potential to reduce the manufacturer's flexibility and creativity. The environmental record of the packaging industry is a sound one. The industry has been the pacesetter in recycling - indeed it was highly active before recycling became fashionable - without the need for minimum recycled content legislation. Consumer demands and commercial reality are the best means to ensure that the packaging industry minimises the use of resources in the manufacture of its products. A community perception exists that recycling is always environmentally beneficial. Associated with this perception have been proposals that governments should legislate (or "mandate") that a certain minimum recycled content should be contained in each package. Its advocates claim that it would reduce waste, promote efficient resource sue, and guarantee markets for minimum recycled content. Recyclcing is a means of achieving a goal, not a goal in itself. It should result in some measurable environmental benefit. Recycling may not always be economic and it is not necessarily a hallmark of environmental superiority. Similarly, policies to promote mandatory minimum recycled content may not produce environmental benefits. Recycled Content - The Problems Mandatory use of recycled content could compromise the performance of packaging. In some instances, the physical properties of packaging are affected by the recycling process thereby reducing their quality. The recycling of paper, for example, damages the fibres. The fibres become shorter with repeated recycling, thereby limiting their reuse. Extra material must be used to achieve the same performance thereby increasing the weight of the package. Consequently, a sheet of board made from recycled fibre is heavier than one made from virgin fibres. The packaging industry has achieved impressive rates of recycling. This record has been achieved on a voluntary basis and is superior to that of most other industries. The industry's recycling rates to date are as follows: Aluminium - 61%; Glass - 41%; Packaging Paper - 73%; PET - 25%; HDPE - 30%; Vinyl - 6%; Steel Cans - 16%; Liquidpaperboard Cartons - 15% waste reduction achieved. The most resource efficient packages may be those that are the least worth recycling. Most plastics are, for example, light and consequently have high unit collection costs. They require little energy and raw materials to produce but have minimal value when collected for recycling. Minimum recycled content decreases the packaging industry's flexibility to produce its product. By imposing constrains, an artificial distortion of the market "favouring" recycled materials could be created. "Closed loop" recycling, where materials are recycled back into similar products, poses additional restrictions. The physical environment is unconcerned with whether or not recycling is open or closed loop. A more desirable approach is to recycled materials into those products for which the recycling process has the lowest environmental impact. In order to recycle the materials into an identical form, additional transport or processing may be required. Recycling the materials may become complicated and expensive. Alternatively the waste could be redirected or recycled into another materials - dependent on available markets. Mandating can result in additional community resources being forced into recycling at a significant economic cost. The cost of Australian packaging may increase making it less internationally competitive. On the domestic market Australian produce could be disadvantaged as packaging with minimum recycled content could be competing with products not compelled to meet the same standards. It would be subject to the same criteria. Furthermore, a policy of minimum recycled content does not take into consideration the possibility of impurities and contaminants in "post-consumer" materials. Concern has been expressed regarding the safety of food and drink packaging. Plastic films which are contaminated by residual food cannot be recycled again for primary food packaging since hygiene requirements cannot be guaranteed. The use of secondary materials may be limited in food packaging grades, and potentially conflict with mandatory minimum recycled content conditions. The manufacturers' responsibility is to ensure that the quality of their packaging is safe for the applications for which it is intended. This may be more difficult when using recycled materials collected from various uncontrolled sources. The key roles of packaging - to contain, preserve and protect - are fundamental and must not be compromised by environmental considerations, however worthy their appeal. Public safety should, in no way, be compromised by government policies aimed at reducing the environmental impact of packaging. Compromising public health by mandating recycled content simply to create markets for recycled materials is not a defensible public policy option. It is only advocated by those who have lost sight of the overall objective, that is, to minimise the life cycle environmental impacts of packaging while enabling it to perform its essential functions. Government preoccupation with waste management must not be allowed to dictate how packaging is designed. Industry should continue to be encouraged to design efficient packaging systems that are innovative, accommodate society's needs and mini8mies the environmental impact. The Better Way Forward The packaging industry has a sound environmental record, one that has been achieved by working co-operatively and constructively with governments: • Packaging is not a major contributor to the waste stream, representing only about 10% of urban solid waste. • The industry's commitment to recycling and waste management is superior in quality and duration to that of most other industries. Packaging materials are generally on course to meet their ANZECC (Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) recycling targets by the year 2000. • Equally impressive, and perhaps more environmentally important, has been the impact of source reduction or lightweighting. Weight reductions of 20%-30% in many types of packaging have been common over the last decade. Lightweighting results in significant saving in production, resource and energy use, and transportation. • The industry continues to devote considerable resources and energy to education and community programs. It produces a range of material for schools in tertiary institutions and organises Packaging Awards, some of which have an environmental focus.The success of the packaging industry in meeting its recycling commitments and in delivering responsible environmental outcomes suggest that a voluntary, co-operative and constructive approach - rather than legislation - is the best way forward. The concern with waste management and the current emphasis on recycling has led to the establishment of extensive recycling schemes throughout Australia. While the potential for recycling may well increase, there is a need to recognise that an optimum waste management policy requires a balanced case-by-case approach. There is no rigid hierarchy which will automatically produce the best environmental outcome. Efficient packaging is vital. The success of a product often relies on the package's quality and reliability. Packaging plays a vital role in product distribution. It is the major factor in ensuring that the quality which exists at the end of the production line is still evident when it finishes up in the hands of the ultimate consumer. Packaging minimises the overall cost of distribution. It is a benefit to optimised as well as a cost to be minimised. Industry, in order to maintain its social and environmental responsibility, cannot produce in an efficient and fully functional manner when legislation such as mandatory minimum recycled content is imposed. Policy constrains of this sort can lead to undesired compromises which in the long-term may prove damaging to individual consumers and society as a whole. THE PACKAGING COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA'S POSITION The packaging Council opposes the imposition of mandatory minimum recycled content. Such a policy is unlikely to have a beneficial environmental impact. It could compromise a package's performance. Any move towards mandatory minimum recycled content would need to be justified on a number of grounds - including environmental, health, safety, economic, and the ability to measure and policy. Mandatory minimum recycled content is unnecessary on environmental grounds. The pressures of consumer demands and commercial reality are better ways to ensure the packaging industry continues to operate in an environmentally responsible manner. Read other Issues Papers: No.01 - "Combustion with Energy Recovery" No.02 - "Life Cycle Analysis" No.03 - "Managing Packaging Waste in Europe - Lessons for Australia" No.04 - "Waste Management " No.05 - "Litter" No.06 - "Mandatory Deposits" No.07 - "Excessive Packaging" No.08 - "Recycling" No.09 - "Australian Packaging - How Competitive?" No.10 - "The Packaging Council of Australia" No.12 - "Eco-Labelling" No.13 - "Packaging - Ten Trends for The Next Ten Years" No.14 - "Packaging - It's Essential Role" No.15 - "The Internet - What it Means for Australian Packaging" No.16 - "Single, Active, Post-Materialistic, and Grey?" No.17 - "Digitisation in Printing - Implications for Packaging" No.18 - "Australian Packaging: Issues and Trends"