Santa Monica legislator cites health, environment issues

Jessica Schley
Correspondent
Saturday, July 12, 2008

SACRAMENTO — It's easy to hate. PVC clamshell packaging is hard to open, with sharp edges that can cut when you try to remove the product from the hard plastic.

And then there's the overwhelming plastic smell that some soft packages produce, causing consumers to have headaches and, in some cases, nausea.

But they are not the reasons Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, is pushing a bill in the Legislature to get rid of polyvinyl chloride packaging by 2015. She thinks there are better reasons to hate the plastic.

Reasons explained

First, there's the human health risk. PVC packaging often contains lead and cadmium, which are known to cause health issues, according to Californians Against Waste, the nonprofit organization sponsoring the bill. This type of packaging includes clamshells, blister packs and mattress-cover bags.

Then there's the environmental damage PVC is said to cause through both its production and disposal. PVC leaches dioxin, a known carcinogen, and contains phthalates, both of which pollute the environment and pose a serious human health hazard, according to Californians Against Waste.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports 32 percent of the waste in landfills is made up of PVC containers and discarded packaging, according to a press release from Brownley.

The organization Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse, composed largely of representatives of state environmental agencies, issued a report last summer that found 61 percent of PVC packages tested exceeded the acceptable threshold for the presence of heavy metals, which puts them in violation of state toxics-in-packaging laws.

The chemical industry and other business groups that oppose Brownley's legislation dispute the study's findings. They say there's much for consumers to love about PVC — it's cost-effective, versatile and takes less energy to produce than other types of packaging.

Chemistry Council responds

"Suggestions that PVC is a toxic material are not supported by credible scientific information," said Tim Shestek, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council.

The bill's proponents argue that PVC is costly for California's recycling industry because it cannot be mixed with other plastics in the recycling process.

"It's often confused with plastic No. 1 because of the similar uses and gets mixed in with those batches," said Edgar Rojas of the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

Common recyclable plastic is labeled No. 1. PVC is labeled No. 3. And mixing them up in the recycling process causes problems.

"One bottle cap made of PVC is enough to ruin a batch of 10,000 PETE (No. 1) bottles, which may lead to further environmental damage, since that ruined batch must then go to the landfill," said Bryan Early, spokesman for Californians Against Waste.

Early said the risks of using PVC, as well as the industrial disadvantages to production and disposal, are obvious. "When melted down, PVC yields very little reusable plastic and lots of excess hazardous materials such as chlorine," he said. "Only 4 percent of plastics in the state are made of PVC, but that's enough to wreak havoc on the environment and human health."

The Chemistry Council, however, says greenhouse gas emissions would increase if PVC production were phased out because the production of replacement plastics emits as much as twice the carbon dioxide.

"PVC uses 20 percent less energy than common alternatives," the council asserted in a letter to lawmakers.

"PVC is one of the most sustainable, cost-effective and versatile materials known," the Plastics Industry Trade Association said in a letter opposing AB 2505. "The (bill) places additional burdens on businesses for a questionable purpose."

Manufacturers use PVC to make strawberry containers, salad-to-go bowls, face and mouthwash containers and shower curtains. Many resemble the No. 1 plastic containers.

Bill would phase out products

"People think that if they find it for sale in a store, it's been deemed safe. Unfortunately, that's not true — yet," said Jennifer Mashburn, an aide to Brownley.

The bill proposes to phase out the use of PVC in packaging in California over the next several years. Rigid PVC would be phased out by 2013, and flexible PVC by 2015. The bill has passed the Assembly and awaits action, possibly Monday, in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

To date, only majority Democrats have supported the measure, but proponents are hopeful Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign the bill.

They note Schwarzenegger founded the group California Ocean Protection Council, which has taken a proactive stance against plastic littering.
E.W. Scripps Co.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for research and
educational purposes.