Although SPI strongly agrees that the American healthcare system is in need of reform, we are extremely disappointed with the package passed by Congress and signed into law on Tuesday. Instead of addressing the issues that have resulted in the healthcare cost crisis — such as the lack of competition in many insurance markets, runaway litigation, or the inability of businesses to pool risk across state lines — we now face a law that places an undue burden squarely on the shoulders of the private sector employers that create and sustain America’s economic engine. As the third largest manufacturing sector in the U.S., the plastics industry impact will be far-reaching.

Through such provisions of the new law as the “pay or play” mandate, companies with 50 or more full-time employees will be forced to purchase federally-imposed levels of insurance coverage for their workers or face per-employee fines in the thousands of dollars. Smaller SPI member companies are not spared, as those who are incorporated as “Subchapter S-corps” may be subject to a new tax on their investment income. Plastic medical device manufacturers will now contend with a new excise tax on the sale of many of their products. Simply put, these new taxes and fees will inhibit a company’s ability to compete in the global marketplace, and will increase pressures on already-strained budgets and workforces.

Beyond these fees, plastics industry impacts are many. We do not yet know how insurance companies will respond to a 40% excise tax, or how states will pay for their increased Medicaid responsibilities; in all likelihood these costs will be passed on to our businesses, further hampering our ability to grow in this economic climate.

For our part, SPI vigorously lobbied against the most onerous aspects of this legislation, both directly and in coalitions with other like-minded stakeholders. Several grassroots mobilization alerts to our full membership resulted in members calling and sending letters to Congress, as well as raising their concerns in direct meetings with their elected officials. SPI continues its support of true reforms, laid out in a policy established by our member-driven process in early 2009.

I am proud of the way our member companies took up the fight in a coordinated effort to oppose this legislation and the fact that the manufacturing sector’s efforts succeeded in removing some particularly harmful provisions that were included in early drafts. Despite passage of this law, the national debate on health care reform will continue and SPI will remain active as it represents the interests of the plastics industry.

What does “eco-friendly” really mean?  Sure, I can derive from the word’s components that it refers to being ecologically responsive, environmentally responsible and good for the Earth. But what exactly is that? How do you make a determination in the face of relentless commercial marketing?  Advertising a product is a multi-million dollar business.  As consumers, we have been trained well by ad execs and marketing gurus to salivate every time someone rings a bell or, not unlike Pavlov’s dog, purchase products described with trendy words like “organic,” “natural” or even ”new and improved.”

Recently I was told by a customer service representative that his company was switching packaging in order to be more “eco-friendly.”  I wondered what that really means and contemplated all the different ways  a package might become more “eco-friendly.” Different material? Less material? Made from recycled content or ability to be recycled? Material produced on site or shipped from a closer location? Less energy used? Biodegradability? Carbon neutrality? There  are many, many factors that could be analyzed. 

While advertisers attempt to drive consumers toward an endless parade of  products, at least here in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is very specific about the ways in which those products can be described as green or “eco-friendlyl.” The FTC’s Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (or “The Green Guides”) exist to offer a host of examples of how to label products correctly and what constitutes incorrect labels.  Just saying a product is sustainable, biodegradable or carbon neutral with the hopes of influencing purchases is not good enough, and the FTC holds companies to a higher standard. Consumers need to be educated on the facts as well.

I spend a lot of my time working with companies who are making advancements creating products that do have less of an impact on our environment.  These companies feel a sense of responsibility and duty when it comes to preserving the world we live in.  I would hope that we, as consumers, would look beyond the slick catch phrase added to our goods and ask for sound scientific proof to back these phrases up. The next time I am shopping for goods, I will be doing so with an eye out for the truth behind the marketing.

According to this recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle, Wham-O, the toy manufacturer founded in a Pasadena, Calif. garage in 1948, will soon be producing Frisbees, Hula Hoops and other products made from recycled plastics (such as margarine tubs, yogurt containers and milk jugs) and sawdust reclaimed from sawmills.

The company’s new owner, Kyle Aguilar, is bringing new energy to Wham-O and recently acquired Sprig Toys Inc., a Colorado-based company that makes ”eco-friendly” preschool toys out of  what it calls “Sprigwood” — the recycled plastic and sawdust mix. According to the Chronicle article, Sprigwood “feels like a slightly heavier plastic with visible flecks of wood and emits the scent of cedar.”

Prior to the use of this material, Frisbees had been injection molded out of polyethylene since the early 1950s. Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about how they have been manufactured.

Wham-O, based in Emeryville, Calif., began as an independent company. In 1982 it was purchased by Kransco Group Companies. In 1994, Mattel bought Wham-O and in 1997 Wham-O became independent once again.  In 2006, the company was purchased by Cornerstone Overseas Investments of Hong Kong.  New owner Aguilar also owns Manufacturing Marvel Inc., which makes toys  — including some Wham-O items — and promotional products from plastic, glass, tin, porcelain and other materials. His purchase of the company will return some Wham-O manufacturing to the United States.

The Frisbee’s inventor, Walter Fredrick “Fred” Morrison, died last month at the age of 90. According to CNN,  he began designing flying discs in 1937 after tossing around popcorn tin lids and cake pans. Soon enough he was selling “Flyin’ Cake Pans” for 25 cents at California beaches and parks. After returning from World War II, Morrison designed a plastic Flyin-Saucer that didn’t catch on. But his better-designed Pluto Platter sold enough to interest Wham-O. The company and Morrison struck a deal in 1957.  Depending on what source you read, 200-300 million Frisbees have been sold.

As many of you avid soccer (also known as “football” outside of the U.S.) fans know, the 2010 FIFA World Cup kicks off on June 11, 2010 in South Africa and will end on July 11. This event is an international competition that is held every four years by members of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport’s global governing body. The current format of the tournament involves 32 teams competing for the title. Overall the World Cup is the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world, with an estimated 715.1 million people watching the 2006 final on television. By way of comparison, “only” an estimated 153.4 million viewers watched all or part of this year’s Super Bowl.

This year many of the world’s top soccer players, including Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, will be wearing shirts made of old plastic bottles at the World Cup. Nike said shirts for the nine national teams wearing its gear (which includes Portugal, Holland, the U.S. and one of the favorites Brazil) would be made from polyester recycled from used bottles. Each shirt uses up to eight plastic bottles retrieved from Japanese and Taiwanese landfill sites. Nike’s fabric suppliers were able to take the plastic bottles and melt them down to produce new yarn that was ultimately converted to fabric for jerseys. The shirts will keep players drier and cooler than previous kits while reducing energy consumption in manufacture by 30% compared to normal polyester. Manufacture of the shirts, which will also be sold to fans, used 13 million plastic bottles – enough to fill 29 football pitches.

Nike isn’t the only company to manufacture shirts out of plastic bottles. Coca-Cola’s Drink2Wear shirts are also made out of recycled bottles, and Patagonia started manufacturing fleece out of post-consumer bottles in 1993 with little fanfare. (Previously we have blogged about Wyndham Hotels’ initiative to institute polyester employee uniforms derived from post-consumer products.) By featuring this technology at a major sporting event watched by millions, Nike is letting the world know that the technology is worth our attention. I couldn’t agree more