Resource Recycling Magazine: New report questions effectiveness of EPR

## New report questions effectiveness of EPR

_By Editorial Staff, Resource Recycling_

If you think that the U.S. could bolster its recycling rate by adopting extended producer responsibility policies, which require manufacturers to manage and fund the recovery of their discarded products, you are wrong, concludes a new study from the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

The [report](http://www.gmaonline.org/file-manager/Sustainability/GMA_SAIC_EPR_Report_091112.pdf), produced by consulting firm SAIC for the association, found that mandatory EPR programs covering food, beverage and consumer product packaging (not hazardous products) do not create more cost-effective residential recycling programs, nor do they encourage manufacturers to change packaging design. Instead, according to the study, U.S. communities that have adopted alternative policies have achieved better recycling rates and better costs for a broader range of the waste stream than EPR mandates.

For the study, SAIC analyzed recycling rates, system costs, packaging changes and other data from various European and Canadian jurisdictions that have implemented EPR. Additionally, SAIC looked at recycling and waste management data for parts of the U.S. that have high recycling rates, such as Ramsey County, Minnesota.

The report found that the U.S. recycles 24 percent of its municipal waste without the aid of an EPR scheme. According to the report, the U.S. has a higher recycling rate than Canada and the European Union, where EPR policies are common and have produced only 18 percent and 23 percent recycling rates for municipal waste, respectively.

Additionally, the report found that packaging use has declined at a faster rate in the U.S. than in the EU. Also, the report concludes that EPR is not necessarily more efficient and increases government and administrative costs.

Ramsey County, Minnesota, a non-EPR jurisdiction, has a lower net cost per ton ($156) than EPR programs in Manitoba ($166) and Ontario ($202), according to the report.

In recent years, support of EPR policies has been growing. In 2010, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution calling for the advancement of EPR in hopes of relieving local governments of managing waste and recycling. Shareholder advocacy group As You Sow has [been pushing for EPR](http://resource-recycling.com/node/2930). Nestle Waters North America has come out in [favor of the policy](http://resource-recycling.com/node/2531) and has been working closely with a new group called Recycling Reinvented to [establish EPR policies at the state level](http://resource-recycling.com/node/2616).

[ ](http://www.rotochopper.com/)

[ ](http://www.amut.it/Default.asp)

**_To return to the Resource Recycling newsletter, click [here](http://www.resource-recycling.com/images/e-newsletterimages/RRe-news091312.html). _**

**_To return to the Plastics Recycling Update newsletter, click [here](http://www.resource-recycling.com/images/e-newsletterimages/PRUe-news091412.html)_**

URL: http://resource-recycling.com/node/3094