 |
<prev next> |
|
 |
|
1. The Container and Packaging Recycling Law: Revision Process and Issues
This article was developed based on information provided by the Plastic Packaging Recycling Council.
|
|
■ How has the revision been made?
The Container and Packaging Recycling Law (enacted in 1995) states at its supplementary provision that the status of recycling efforts shall be examined and necessary steps shall be taken ten years after the enforcement. Based on that provision, discussions began in 2004 and have continued more than a year.
Discussion on the revision have been made under the leadership of The Ministry of the Environment (MoE) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). They have held several meetings, and collected a wide range of public comments from citizens' groups, industry associations and other interested parties. A partial amendment of the Law, which was based on the discussions, was deliberated by the Diet. During the process of these discussions, several issues became apparent.
■ Discussions was focused on cost sharing
The discussions basically polarized on the following two points: (1) Local governments complained that their cost was too high and they again made strong demands for subsidies to central government. (2) Consumers insisted that the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR) should be thoroughly applied and then producers should bear a part of sorting, collection and storage costs.
In response to the above, industry groups have claimed that it does not help reduce emissions of container and packaging wastes rather just hand local governmental roles to industry to abolish each role of the three parties defined by the existing law and to revise it so that producers had to bear part of local governments' sorting and collection costs.
Certainly, the Fundamental Law for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society enacted after the Container and Packaging Recycling Law certainly emphasizes the concept of EPR, but the OECD's basic approach on the EPR is that the EPR does not necessarily mean shifting all responsibility onto producers; rather it is recommended to take the method most suited to one's own country with considering each country's economic, social and cultural circumstances-.
Given that the proportion of local governments sorting and collecting plastic containers and packaging exceeds only slightly 50 percent, it is clear that sorting and collection practices are still insufficient. Moreover, in many cases sorting of refuse prior to collection and reduction of waste volume are inadequate, and this leads to higher local government costs for transportation and post-collection sorting. The reality is that large amounts of residual refuse occur due to non-recyclable items being mixed with recyclables, and this is a factor behind the steep rise in recycling costs.
Nippon Keidanren, which represents industry groups and producers, takes the view that revision of roles and cost-sharing should not be discussed without considering the above points; it is not enough to focus only on the concept of EPR without carefully examining matters such as the effectiveness of current measures.
■ Reconsidering the priority given to materials recycling
The main purpose of the Law is re-commercialization, and while the purpose determines the nature of the law, the purpose also leaves several issues unaddressed. Given that the Law places emphasis on reuse of containers and packaging rather than their processing, another problem is how to deal with the shortfall in recycling capability clearly anticipated in future plans.
In order to operate this type of system smoothly, a 30 percent increase in capability to recycle collected volumes is required. It is projected that the current situation, where all containers and packaging wastes collected by local governments cannot be recycled, will continue to be unavoidable even over the next five-year planning period. Container and packaging wastes, which are very dirty or mixed with other refuse, are unsuitable for recycling. There is a limit in the practice of collecting large volumes of such waste that is unsuitable for recycling and forcibly trying to recycle it.
Since the bidding process gives priority to material-recycling, successful bids are always made by high-cost material-recycling businesses. New businesses almost always enter the high-unit-cost materials recycling field, leading to a situation where costs remain stuck at a high level.
■ Additional study on new recycling methods
There is a need to reconsider the priority that has been placed on materials recycling, and to interpret recycling options more broadly so that recycling capability can be increased. In particular, to promote recycling of plastic containers and packaging we need to pursue new methods rather than relying solely on materials recycling - although plastic is recycled for materials, half of it eventually become waste.
Ultimately it was not possible to remove the priority on material-recycling, but there was some movement toward recognizing other recycling methods such as RPF (solid fuel made from refuse, paper and plastic) and conversion to cement fuel "as supplementary methods" (METI) or "in case of emergency" (MoE).
The law took the position that thermal recycling can not be accepted, and burning waste is so unpopular that it provokes a negative reaction. However, there is a growing understanding that plastic waste can be used as a substitute for limited reserves of fossil fuels, and this is a positive development in terms of breaking out of the current situation.
■ Further efforts to reduce social costs
There are also other issues such as measures to deal with "free riders," the problem of bale quality, debate about charging for checkout bags, and the problem of PET bottle exports. Despite the issues the current law has been achieved many result. Thus, it is important to take measures to more promote the current law without changing each current responsibility but with performing the each responsibility more thoroughly. To that end, it is necessary to emphasize the approach of making further 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) efforts in the container and packaging recycling.
Nippon Keidanren is also working to secure a more desirable future for container and packaging recycling by formulating and implementing an industry voluntary action plan per plastic material to promote 3R activities in the container and packaging recycling.
In concert with this initiative, an 8-body liaison committee for 3R promotion has been formed, comprising representatives of eight groups involved in recycling of plastic containers and packaging (including the Plastic Packaging Recycling Council). The committee has announced voluntary action plans including numerical targets and aims to make new 3R efforts after completion of the review process.
|
|
|
|
|
2. Support to the Anti-Detergent movement by Local Government has been bipolarized
- Outline of Responses to JSDAﾕs Request for Abolition of Guidelines on Synthetic Detergents -
|
|
In September and October 2005 the JSDA Special Committee for the Promotion of Communication distributed a survey to 769 local governments throughout Japan asking whether they had measures banning synthetic detergents or guidelines promoting the use of soaps.
Of the 432 local governments that responded, most reported that they did not have guidelines and there was no particular issue. However, some local governments still present problems, and there is a polarization between those that present problems and those that do not.
Examination of guidelines obtained from 30 municipal governments revealed problems with 20 of them. Of these, 16 had serious problems and the other four had low-level problems. After pointing out the problems with these guidelines, in May 2006 letters signed by the JSDA Chairman requesting the abolition of guidelines were sent to the heads of relevant municipal governments.
Of the 16 with serious problems, eight responded that they were considering a review of their guidelines or had already revised them in light of changes in public attitudes toward detergents. Conversely, five local governments responded negatively to the idea of reviewing their guidelines, either leaving outdated guidelines in place because "there are no problems with them at the present time and no need to abolish them," or ignoring the significance of advances in safety and refusing to abolish their guidelines "until the safety of synthetic detergents is clearly proven."
Two of those with low-level problems stated that they were not considering abolition of guidelines at the current time and would continue with measures set out in their guidelines (the other two local governments with low-level problems did not respond).
The JSDA will continue to provide the necessary information to local governments considering guideline reviews and to build good communications with them. While also continuing to provide information to local governments who are negative about such reviews, we will consider making renewed requests for abolition of guidelines, including sending out open letters.
|
|
|
|
|
3. Standards Set for Disinfectant Labeling on Kitchen and Household Detergents
"Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council Approves Additions to Code of Fair Competition"
|
|
In recent years the number of household synthetic detergent products claiming disinfectant effects has risen, reflecting growing consumer awareness of hygiene issues. A review of the six JSDA member companies that have relevant products shows that 18 out of 41 hand dishwashing liquids and 23 out of 48 hard surface cleaners claim disinfectant properties. Thus many products are sold with claims of disinfectant effects, but up to now each company has set its own standard for claiming such effects.
However, the current situation where the various detergents on the market claim disinfectant properties backed only by the manufacturers' own standards is hardly consumer-friendly and must ultimately undermine trust in the products.
Consequently, there were growing calls for the industry to examine the issue, set standards for claiming disinfectant effects, and determine uniform rules for labeling.
Given this background, in 1999 a working group was established under the Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council (including more than half of JSDA full members and with the JSDA providing secretariat services) with the aim of setting rules for appropriate labeling related to disinfectant properties, and the group has continued to actively investigate the issue.
The final goal was to set clear disinfectant labeling standards for hand dishwashing liquids, hard surface cleaners, and laundry detergents and to clarify the nature of disinfectant claims. However, in the process of its investigation the working group encountered two points that required a great deal of time to resolve: (1) Developing an appropriate testing method and confirming its reproducibility. (2) Confirming the correlation between the disinfectant performance results gained from the testing method and actual use in the home.
As a result of these prolonged efforts to enhance the validity of the standards, the working group has formulated disinfectant labeling rules regarding the sponge disinfection merits of hand dishwashing liquids and the disinfectant properties of hard surface cleaners. Rules for laundry detergents are currently under consideration and will be added as soon as they are finalized.
The regular general meeting of the Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council held in June 2005 formally endorsed a proposal for additions and revisions to the Code of Fair Competition relating to disinfectant labeling for hand dishwashing liquids and hard surface cleaners. This proposal was submitted to the Fair Trade Commission, which approved it. While prompt implementation of the standards is called for, manufacturers have been given a two-year grace period to comply with them.
Given these changes, the JSDA is promoting disinfectant labeling in line with the Code of Fair Competition and launching publicity activities to ensure consumers have a sound understanding of the disinfectant properties of hard surface cleaners. Specifically, the JSDA website and other media will be used to provide information on topics such as: general knowledge about bacteria; definition of the term "disinfectant;" the significance and objectives of establishing provisions in the code relating to disinfectant labeling; how to recognize detergent products that meet the disinfectant labeling standards; explanation of detergents with disinfectant labeling; and the names of public testing bodies that can conduct disinfectant testing.
|
■ Matters Approved by the Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council
- 1. Establishment of uniform standards for eligibility to use disinfectant* labeling
In order to use disinfectant labeling, manufacturers must have tests conducted by an external testing body that is approved by the Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council and uses a testing method stipulated by the Council, and test results must meet a certain standard.
Two bacterial strains - staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus coli - are used in determining whether a product passes or fails the test. To meet the required standard, the product must be able to reduce the viable bacteria counts for both bacterial strains to less than 1/100 of those recorded when using a control sample with no disinfectant effects (i.e., the disinfection activity value must be 2 or more).
*The definition of "disinfectant" used by the Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council is a substance that "reduces effective numbers of bacteria on the target surface by means of physical, chemical or biological action." (Note that true fungi such as mold and yeast are not included in this definition.)
2. Establishment of labeling methods
Products that meet the above disinfectant standard may be labeled with either or both of the following: (1) A "disinfectant" symbol. (2) The statement, "This product meets the disinfectant standard established by the Detergent and Soap Fair Trade Council."
However, in cases where the disinfectant effect is proven only for specific surfaces or applications, or where certain usage conditions must be met in order for the disinfectant to be effective, such surfaces, applications or usage conditions must be clearly stated so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of general consumers.
Furthermore, in cases where the method of use is markedly different from usual use because the product is designed for specific surfaces or applications - for example hand dishwashing liquid used for sponge disinfection - the target surface or application must be included in the disinfectant labeling.
It is also necessary to clearly distinguish the disinfectant properties of hard surface cleaners from "disinfection" as prescribed in the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law. In addition, labeling must specify that the products do not disinfect all bacteria.
|
|
|
|
|
