ALBANY | New York – April 2024 – The New York State Legislature is currently considering legislative bills S. 4246-B/A. 5322-B, which, if enacted, will impose several new environmental regulations on companies operating within the state. Of particular concern to the printing and packaging industries is the proposed ban on carbon black, the primary pigment in black printing ink.
The introduction of NY S. 4246-B/A. 5322-B in February 2024 has sparked significant apprehension within the industry. The bill aims to establish an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program while simultaneously prohibiting the use of carbon black. This prohibition would have a profound negative impact on the printing and packaging sectors, jeopardizing thousands of jobs and disrupting both production and usage of printed materials.
New York’s printing and packaging sector is a vital component of the state’s economy, encompassing approximately 260 businesses employing over 8,000 individuals and generating a payroll exceeding $400 million annually. With an output valued at nearly $2.8 billion per year, this sector plays a pivotal role in New York’s economic landscape. The proposed ban on carbon black not only threatens thousands of jobs but also undermines the entire economic ecosystem surrounding the industry.
Furthermore, the prohibition on carbon black would hinder manufacturers’ ability to convey essential information directly on packaging or labels. This restriction could lead to a breakdown in communication, preventing crucial details such as product identification, ingredients, usage instructions, warnings, manufacturer information, and expiration dates from reaching consumers effectively.
While the bill cites toxicity concerns and potential interference with recycling processes as rationale for the ban, it fails to acknowledge crucial distinctions recognized by reputable organizations such as the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) and California’s Proposition 65 program. These distinctions affirm that when carbon black is incorporated into inks or used as a colorant for packaging, it does not pose the same health risks as its powdered form.
Moreover, advancements in technology have addressed concerns related to recycling interference and ink “bleeding,” rendering the proposed ban unnecessary and counterproductive.
There are additional concerns regarding the legislative process:
Limited stakeholder input: There has been limited opportunity for meaningful stakeholder input or discussion of the merits of this complex legislation.
Lack of clarity in environmental justification: The legislation imposes a wide ban on the presence of chemicals in packaging without clear environmental or public health justification.
Lack of recognition for unintentional substances: The bill does not account for “de minimus” levels to accommodate substances that were not intentionally added, hindering the use of recycled content in products.
Uncertainty for businesses: The bill creates a Toxic Packaging Task Force that could recommend additional substance bans without a sound scientific basis, creating uncertainty for New York State businesses.
Legislation that fails to adapt to the rapid pace of innovation risks becoming quickly outdated. It is crucial that the draft language of the bill be revisited to exempt printing inks and packaging materials containing carbon black from the ban. Such a revision would acknowledge the critical distinction regarding the form and use of carbon black, ensuring that legislation does not inadvertently compromise the viability and safety of packaging and printing inks.
www.printcommunications.org
French 
English 