Should businesses be free to make any product or packaging they want, then sell it and walk away with no further responsibility? According to the laws in 28 nations, the answer is "no." There is one more step to add to the business equation before profits can be counted; it’s called "Producer Responsibility" (PR), or "take-back" laws, and it requires companies who make or import items to be involved in the "end-of-life" phase of their products’ life cycles. In almost all cases, there is a requirement to meet minimal recycling or re-use rates.

I recently attended the international "Take It Back!" conference in Los Angeles and was astounded at how many exciting Producer Responsibility activities are happening outside the USA. We heard from top experts from the European Union, Germany, Norway, Britain, China, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and other nations.

• By the year 2005, all cars made in Europe must be taken back free of charge by their producers, and 85% of the vehicle must be re-used or recycled;
• In Norway, between 70-90% of all electrical and electronic products must be recovered by their producers for re-use or recycling;
• In Argentina, a national law is pending which would designate as "hazardous waste" any packaging that isn’t re-usable or recyclable;
• In Brazil, the National Solid Waste Policy (something which the USA also needs!) requires that corporations obtain an "Environmental Operating License" that includes take-back requirements;
• The European Union is establishing rules for all corporations called "Essential Requirements," which include take-back laws.

What is the goal here? And how is such government intervention in the marketplace justified? According to Paul Hawken’s book, The Ecology of Commerce, 94% of the materials used in the manufacture of the average US product are thrown away before the product even reaches the shelves. Take-back laws create an incentive for producers to pay attention to the design phase of their product/packaging’s life cycle. That is where the greatest concentration of creativity, control and resources exists to solve the downstream environmental problems which obsolete products and single-use packaging create. If manufacturers know up front that their product/packaging must be re-usable, recyclable or compostable, and that they will be charged a portion of the cost to ensure this, all sorts of ecologically-sensitive new ideas will enter the marketplace without further government intervention.

American corporations conducting international business will have to live by the take-back laws in these other countries ("producers" are defined as either manufacturers or importers). The big question is whether or not those same corporations will then change their business practices back here in the USA to match their new "environmental" approach abroad. If Coca-Cola is any example, we’re in trouble. Coke has been making recycled plastic bottles in Australia because they have to by law. But in the USA Coke doesn’t use recycled plastic and is actually fighting against a national campaign to get them to start using recycled material back home. If they do it in Australia, why not here? We may soon be asking that question of many more companies and products in addition to Coke as the international Producer Responsibility laws take hold.

It’s bad enough that our country is ignoring this positive new global trend called producer responsibility, but our role is actually turning ugly. The American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) and the American Electronics Association (AEA) are fighting against the European Union’s proposed electronics take-back laws (called the WEEE Directive). The AEA and ACC have already won some "victories," such as deleting the requirement in the WEEE Directive that computers contain some recycled plastic in their construction. The issue of environmental pollution from electronic discards is a serious and growing problem, considering that lead poisoning is the leading cause of brain damage and learning disabilities in children.

There are five pounds of lead in every computer monitor, and there is lead in most of the solder points in electronic product circuit boards. By 2005, 150 million PCs will be landfilled in the USA, along with millions of other electronic products. The issue is public health, and the solution is to use less toxic materials in manufacturing and then capture them all for re-use or recycling at the end of the product’s life cycle. Yet, the large American corporations are fighting to make sure that small countries like Norway don’t pass common sense laws which would protect their children but cost the consumer a few pennies on their purchase.

I know that few things in life are black and white. But on this issue of whether or not manufacturers should have all or at least part of the responsibility for the final disposition of the products they make, I think the answer is a resounding "YES." I think the greatest gains ahead for the environment lie in better design of our products and packaging, which is one of the cornerstones of the Zero Waste movement (see articles on pages 4 and 5). Perhaps the next big question for us in Boulder County is, "Should we pass our own local take-back laws?"