Well-known brands and their industry groups have recently taken their positions on the US EPA. Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. The EPA aims to eliminate the release of plastic waste into the environment from land-based sources by 2040. Empty beverage bottles, snack wrappers, and other consumer products make up a significant portion of what can end up as waste.
CPG participated in researching policies to improve materials management, defining key terms such as “disposable,” policies for recycled content, and coordinating research goals.
See below for brand recommendations and stay up to date. How the Packaging Industry Group Responded to EPA’s Ideas.
pepsi
PepsiCo, whose products extend beyond soft drinks to many food and snack brands, commented on topics such as reducing pollution during plastic manufacturing and improving material management after use.
The company said it supports a harmonized approach across the EPA, the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies. In defining “disposable,” Pepsi recommends “using a material management framework for how packaging works within a recycling system.” Pepsi said that “advanced recycling” will continue to be allowed as an alternative to landfills, and that recycled content or reuse systems that minimize or avoid single-use plastics will be included in the definition of virgin plastic reduction. It claims to be Pepsi wants a definition that “encourages and rewards innovation in all its forms” that encourages reuse adoption.
Pepsi said it was a “strong supporter” of its “well-structured” Extended Producer Responsibility program, which it envisions as a system in which producers of products included in waste and recycling streams share responsibility. Ta.
“PepsiCo participates in EPR programs around the world and has learned through years of experience how to maximize program efficiency and strong environmental outcomes,” the company writes. To improve end-of-life materials management, Pepsi’s recommendations include considering life-cycle assessment data to guide decision-making, increasing government research and investment in recycling and composting infrastructure, and promoting consumer behavior. and exclude litter from the scope of this strategy, as it relies heavily on composting.” It cannot be controlled by EPA regulatory agencies. ”
consumer brand association
A consumer goods industry trade group representing more than 2,000 brands sought collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration on a study on the safety and effectiveness of consumer recycled materials in food packaging.
“EPA is working with FDA to rapidly collect, review, and publish data analyzing the safe use conditions, limitations, and availability of food-grade PCR materials, including an analysis of existing infrastructure and supply chain needs. It is important to do so,” wrote the CBA.
The CBA also asks to consider the impact of resin identification codes (which were not originally intended as indicators of recyclability) on consumer confusion.The issue came up in the discussion How to update the Green Guidewhich is the FTC’s guidance for industry on the use of environmental marketing claims.
The CBA recommended that the EPA step up its implementation of the National Recycling Strategy announced in 2021. “By standardizing recycling definitions, measures, targets and performance indicators, we support effective consumer recycling education and combat consumer confusion at the national level, resulting in an effective recycling system,” said the group. writes. “Conversely, the lack of standardization and consistent use of recycling definitions creates challenges for consumers and businesses across different systems.”
The CBA said the EPA could play a role in facilitating harmonization between its sustainability efforts and requirements and cooperate with the Green Guide review. Further, on the issue of PCR, the CBA wrote, “it is imperative that existing laws and guidance be reviewed to ensure that they are conducive to market use.” “Currently, there are significant barriers to the inclusion of PCRs in product packaging due to outdated policies and guidance at the federal level.”
