From: www.thedrinksbusiness.com

Rare is the political wrangle devoid of all things personal and this one is no exception. Some state legislators characterize the bag fee ordinance as a “money grab” by Washtenaw County.

Michigan is one of 10 states having a beverage container deposit bill, its version having been implemented in 1976. Going an extra measure, in 2004, the state passed a companion billing, making it illegal to dispose in a landfill beverage containers covered by the deposit bill.

The state claims a redemption rate of 95%, a number challenged by some who oppose mandatory deposits, maintaining that it’s more of an imposition on retailers than it’s worth. Even if the aforementioned number is too high, it’s likely not by much. That’s because most consumers choose to lug their empties back to the retailer for redemption; plus, there are others who forage for empties for income purposes. Unredeemed deposits revert to the state, which, in turn, sends a portion back to the retailers.

The larger-scale retailers invest in so-called reverse vending machines into which consumers feed empty containers (cans and plastic bottles). The machines crush them and calculate what’s owed. Those retailers, nonetheless, don’t regard the acceptance of empties as a hands-off operation, since the machines require a certain amount of attendance. In addition, the retailers must store the crushed empties until they are picked up by a third-party company.

Who speaks for packaging?

Talk of fees, deposits, and bans──and that’s just limiting the discussion to Michigan! In other states there have been bans on expanded polystyrene containers and mandates for packaging that is compostable, among other initiatives. Arguably, Europe is even farther down the road, relative to revising the regulatory landscape. It all makes the case that packaging has been, is, and likely will remain, a political pawn.

Indeed, in the era of sustainability, packaging is a convenient focus, owed to its ubiquity; however, it’s not enough to decry that there are stakeholders who travel a path of least resistance in forming their opinions. A relevant question is: What are the supposedly more informed sources doing to lend guidance?

True, packaging is fragmented, characterized by intense competition among materials and container types. It’s not the easiest matter to value kinship and recognize mutually-shared vulnerabilities. An incentive to adopt that perspective is the fact that the Washtenaw County ordinance and the Michigan Legislation bill, together, targets paper bags, plastic bags, and other plastic containers.

The various packaging-related trade associations can lend reasoned, objective voices, but only if they aren’t ruled by narrow allegiances. Perhaps even better suited to the task is academia, that is to say, the various packaging curriculums, in the U.S. and international. As an ending comment, it’s ironic that the bag fee issue, and any other state bills about packaging, will be decided in Lansing, just minutes from East Lansing, home of Michigan State University and its world-renown School of Packaging.

Sterling Anthony, CPP, is a consultant specializing in packaging, marketing, logistics, and human-factors. His contact information: 100 Renaissance Center, Box-176, Detroit, MI 48243; telephone 313-531-1875; sterlinganthony1@sbcglobal.net; www.pkgconsultant.com