(The Center Square) — The food industry is pushing back on the latest manifestation of a recycling bill being considered by New York lawmakers to reduce packaging, warning that it would further drive up grocery costs.
The proposal, which is being considered by the state Assembly, would require producers to decrease their single-use plastic and paper packaging over the next several years and restrict the use of a litany of “toxic” chemicals often used in packaging. Backers of the plan, which has already passed the Senate, say it will help improve the state’s recycling efforts while reducing solid waste.
But the National Supermarket Association said it opposes the changes, saying it would still saddle the food industry with higher packaging and compliance costs that would ultimately be passed on to consumers.
“That means higher grocery bills for families who are already making hard choices every week about what goes in the cart and what has to stay behind,” Nelson Eusebio, the association’s director of government affairs, said in a statement. “When workable substitutes do not exist, producers will have two options: charge more or stop offering certain items. Either way, the consequences land on supermarket shelves and at the checkout counter.”
Under the plan, companies would be required to reduce their single-use plastic packaging by 10% within three years, and by 30% after 12 years. It would also require paper bags to be made of at least 40% recycled content, within two years of the bill’s passage, while plastic trash bags would have to be 20% recycled within five years. The measure also bans 17 “toxic” chemicals found in packaging, including PFAS, lead, mercury, and polyvinyl chloride.
Companies using packaging would have to join a state-approved nonprofit that would charge yet-to-be-determined fees to reimburse cities and towns for the cost of processing solid waste and recycling.
The bill was recently amended by Assembly Democrats to soften the blow on the industry by excluding businesses with earnings of $5 million a year or more and reducing fines for violators of the proposed restrictions on packaging chemicals.
But the changes did little to sway a coalition of New York business groups that opposed the original proposal.
Ken Pokalsky, vice-president of government affairs at The Business Council of New York, said the amendments “do not reflect a balanced, consensus-based program, nor does it reflect a ‘compromise’ with business, as there has been no formal negotiation process.”
“The bill will impact consumer costs and choice, as it imposes significant compliance costs on business,” Pokalsky said in a statement.
The Supermarket Association said Albany lawmakers should “pursue a more workable approach that improves recycling infrastructure without making groceries more expensive or limiting what families can buy.” The group said the recent amendments to the bill “simply did not meet this standard as they did nothing to ensure products remain affordable and on the shelf.”
“New Yorkers need affordable food, reliable access to everyday products, and neighborhood supermarkets that can survive,” Eusebio said. “Albany should not force them to choose.”
