Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Attorney General Brown Announces Largest Predatory Lending Settlement in History: $8.68 Billion in Home Loans and Foreclosures Relief Nationally—Up to $3.5 Billion to Californians—From Countrywide Financial Corporation
Hannah-Beth Jackson Has the Goods on Tony Strickland in Pivotal California Senate Seat Race
Proposition 5: We Need to Fix the Drug Court System
Turning a Red California District Blue: Is the Third Time a Charm for Ferial Masry and the Sixth Seat for Democrats to Gain Two-Thirds in the Assembly?
The Heller Gun Decision Week 14 – The U.S. Senate Holds H.R. 6842 and California Holds SB 327
Cavala: Competitive Legislative Seats Do Not Produce “Moderate” Lawmakers
In California’s 5th Senate District Race Democrat Wolk Should Win

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Phasing out PVCs in California’s Consumer Packaging to Remove Toxic Chemicals from Our Environment and Ocean

AB 2505 will green California's waste stream

By Bryan Early
Policy Associate
Californians Against Waste

Every year, 60,000 tons of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) resin packaging is distributed in California, polluting our bodies and environment and contaminating California’s recycling stream. The resin, made from a toxic combination of chlorine gas and petroleum products, is known by us all as the soft, shiny, smelly bags that hold bulky blankets and as the rigid, sharp clamshells and other containers that package electronics and even some food. Few of us know, however, how toxic much of this material is and the problems all PVC packaging have on California’s recycling economy.

PVC is actually threat to public health and the environment throughout its lifecycle. The production of PVC uses several toxic chemicals, including vinyl chloride, that have been linked to high illness rates in and around PVC factories. PVC packaging itself often contains high levels of phthalates, a worrisome group of additives used to make it flexible.

PVC packaging also often contains high levels of toxic heavy metals—one recent study found that 61% of PVC containers tested positive for Lead or Cadmium contamination. These toxins can migrate from packaging items into the human body and environment. Recognizing these threats, the California Ocean Protection Council has called for the banning of vinyl chloride from plastic packaging by 2015.

To make matters worse, PVC is virtually non-recyclable because toxicity concerns and lack of market. In fact, PVC is actually considered a serious recycling contaminant as it is nearly indistinguishable from other, non-toxic resins such as PET that are recycled. Just 1 PVC bottle can render a batch of 1,000 PET bottles unsuitable for high-end uses, costing recyclers thousands. Indeed, the presence of PVC package limits what recyclers can accept for recycling and unnecessarily increases the amount of waste local governments must landfill.

Recently, several high-profile corporations, including Sears, Target and Wal-Mart, announced they were ending or phasing out the distribution of PVC packaging. While it is great that these chains are taking their environmental responsibility seriously, only state action can solve this problem.

That’s why my organization is sponsoring AB 2505 (Brownley), which will phase out the use of PVC resin in consumer packaging. AB 2505 targets the largest class of this resin in the residential solid stream—and the types of PVC that we come into closest contact with. The use of PVC packaging is completely unnecessary. Non-toxic and recyclable PET, HDPE, glass and other packaging types represent a cost effective alternative to the use of PVC packaging.

We as policy makers have a commitment to encouraging the use of recyclable, non-toxic disposable packaging. AB 2505 will remove one of the last barriers to that goal.

Bryan Early works for Californians Against Waste (CAW), an organization dedicated to conserving resources, preventing pollution, and protecting California’s environment through the development, promotion and implementation of waste reduction and recycling policies and programs. CAW was founded in 1978 and has been active since its inception in helping to pass landmark legislation in our state.

Posted on April 18, 2008

Comments

I read with interest Mr. Bryan Early’s posting regarding AB 2505 and what he asserts is a need to phase out the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) packaging containers. While Mr. Early’s comments make for nice “sound bytes,” little of what he says is supported by fact.

PVC is one of the most versatile plastics, used in the manufacturing of building and construction products, pipe, vinyl windows and packaging, particularly for containers that hold sensitive products like electronic components or flammable liquids like lighter fluid.

While the proponents of this legislation proclaim PVC a “toxic material”, AB 2505 has been loaded up with a host of “exempted” products, including packaging that holds pharmaceuticals and drugs and now most recently for containers holding fuels and lubricants. If PVC is as toxic as alleged by Mr. Early, why are products like IV bags, tubing and pharmaceutical packaging that hold substances directly ingested into the human body exempted, yet a PVC package holding nuts and bolts would be banned? Perhaps political expediency is more important than sound public policy.

Mr. Early also fails to mention that CPVC plastic pipe was recently approved by the California Building Standards Commission to deliver drinking water to homes and that PVC pipe is the preferred material for use at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium in Los Angeles and the Birch Aquarium at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. Suggestions that PVC-based materials leach toxic chemicals that endanger human health or the marine environment are without scientific merit.

The proponents of AB 2505 suggest that PVC is a “threat to public health and the environment throughout its lifecycle” yet they provide no data to support this claim. The production and use of PVC has been considered by numerous federal agencies, and the product is already well regulated in drinking water, food, and air. Consider that the US Environmental Protection Agency requires that the amount of vinyl chloride in drinking water not exceed 0.002 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of water. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 1 part vinyl chloride per 1 million parts of air (1 ppm) averaged over eight hours in the workplace. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the vinyl chloride content of various plastics. These include plastics that carry liquids and plastics that contact food. The limits for vinyl chloride content vary depending on the nature of the plastic and its use.

Proponents proclaim that in one recent study “61% of PVC containers tested positive for lead or cadmium contamination.” Here, Mr. Early is referring to a recent “Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse Report” but what is not stated is that PVC products in the United States are generally stabilized with compounds based on tin, barium, calcium or zinc -- not lead or cadmium. This figure from the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse Report represents data from flexible packaging like pouches and zipper bags, not rigid and goes on to say that “almost all” of the products in flexible PVC packages were imported from Asia. Interestingly, all PVC “blister packs” and clamshells, which are semi-rigid passed the screening tests. ACC has suggested that the most prudent public policy the state could enact would be rigorous enforcement of its existing “toxics in packaging” law that specifically targets imported products – an action we can all immediately support.

While Mr. Early proclaims PVC to be “virtually non-recyclable because of toxicity concerns and lack of market” he fails to mention the list of plastics recyclers currently accepting PVC that are listed on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s database. This information can be accessed at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Plastic/Recyclers/RecyclerSearch.aspx

While rhetoric may make for good Internet web postings, California’s lawmakers deserve to be informed by fact, not sound bytes.

Posted by: Tim Shestek at April 24, 2008 10:02 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker