Subject:
|
Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:10:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
463 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <386A025E.278F00DF@cleanweb.net>...
> < Cross posted to off.topic.debate >
>
> John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> > Haven't companies been sued for misleading packaging before? Aren't
> > there laws about this, or do they only relate to food products? I've
> > noticed that potato chips seem to be coming in bigger bags recently, too,
> > and have to wonder if some(whichever) government agency is slacking. I
> > agree with you Tom, the huge boxes definitely need downsizing.
>
> Well, all packages contain what they have in there (i.e. 5.5 oz, etc.)
> The packages may need downsizing, which I can agree with, but the
> government taking action against them? What agency should look at that?
> If you are too naive to read the package, and look at the numerous
> warnings / labels /etc., you do so at your own peril. That is not
> governments role, unless you like to have government in every part of
> your life, the market, etc.
A quick search on the net found that Japan and Germany have laws such as
I mentioned, and, voila! so does the US, many of them in fact. Maybe you
missed this pork while the press had its day in the sun harassing George and
Danny boy. most of this came when the huge leftist recycling boom was
underway. These laws are still active. And the government agencies (EPA
and similar) that are supposed to enforce them are still around, so as I
said, have they been slacking? Whether you like agencies or not, there are
plenty of them and if they are receiving public funds, I personally believe
they should do what they are designed to do. Actually the answer (for the
death of enthusiasm for these laws, and the apparent slacking of the EPA,
etc) is better answered in the article below, "the crisis in landfill space
that
served as the foundation for so
many of these efforts was
overstated from the beginning. "
Like in the MS (old anti trust laws) debate in another thread, these laws
are no longer of political use, and thus ignored, for the next X years,
until it becomes a political issue again.
A larger excerpt from the article, from PackagingDigest.com,
"Solid waste
Packaging makes up a notable component of the
municipal solid waste in the US, and the degree to
which that fact has drawn public attention over the
years has waxed and waned. Right now we're in a
waning period, and it's tempting to think it's because
state and federal legislators and the public have
finally, once and for all, recognized the many
important benefits of packaging. Packaging, we know,
provides food safety, convenience, communications-in
short, as noted by Institute of Packaging
Professionals executive director Bill Pflaum,
packaging creates our "lifestyle". Alas, it's probably
more a combination of economic and political forces
that put the issues on the back burner. Remember all
of packaging's benefits, though, for the inevitable next
round.
If you picked up the story in the late '80's, you would
have seen increased policy making by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, which published its
Agenda for Action about solid waste in 1989, and the
Coalition of Northeast Governors' influential 1989
packaging guidelines, calling for, in order, no
packaging; minimal packaging; returnable/refillable/
reusable packaging; and recyclable/ recycled content
packaging.
What followed in succeeding years was a proliferation
of state laws ostensibly designed to reduce
packaging's effect on solid waste, bottle bills,
materials or product bans, and rates-and-dates laws
that compelled packaging to comply with one of
several often stringent options that require packaging
to be either recycled, recyclable, reusable or source
reduced by stated levels by stated deadlines.
The pressure bubble may have
burst in part due to a rethinking of
the premises that led to it in the
first place. In about 1995,
evidence became widely known
that the crisis in landfill space that
served as the foundation for so
many of these efforts was
overstated from the beginning.
CONEG also created, in 1989, model legislation that
called for the elimination of added heavy metals-lead,
cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium-to
packaging, and reduction of total heavy metals that
were not added. The model law was promptly passed
in many states (18 have it today)."
--
Have fun!
John (this packaging stuff really gets to me) DiRienzo
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
Hooray! Hooray! Its Y2K! A new decade starts next year.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
| John, (...) Oh, I agree with the concept of them doing what they are supposed to do. Having them in the first place, on the other hand.... Don't worry, John, I am having a case of me overgoverning again, and it just booms out of me every now and (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
