Senator Ron Johnson (right) with SPI President Bill Carteaux

Referring to SPI President Bill Carteaux — but in reality speaking of the entire U.S. plastics industry –  Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told a crowd of  nearly 150 plastics industry professionals at the SPI Spring 2011 National Board Conference, “Bill’s got one of his own on the inside now.” Indeed, Senator Johnson is a plastics manufacturer himself, having founded Pacur, a PET sheet extrusion company,  in 1979. Speaking at SPI’s  plenary breakfast session yesterday in Scottsdale, Arizona, Johnson discussed his transition from the factory floor to the Senate floor and repeatedly urged his audience to “get involved and stay involved” in matters of public policy and the political process.

In the summer of 1979, Senator Johnson and his brother-in-law started Pacur in Oshkosh, Wis. The company specializes in the extrusion of light and heavy gauge polyester, copolyester and polypropylene resins for a variety of applications, including packaging, printing, medical and electrical. From operating the equipment, to keeping the company books and selling its products, Johnson has been involved in every function of the business.

As a trade association, SPI devotes a considerable amount of time educating elected officials about the business of plastics — the benefits of plastic products, the industry’s significant contributions to the economy, and the challenges that can hinder manufacturing in this country. How unique and wonderful in this case to have a U.S. Senator who already understands the plastics industry because he is part of it!

“I try to relate everything I do in Congress to my business career,” said Johnson, who serves on the Appropriations, Budget, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Aging Committees. ”As a manufacturer you want to find the root cause of things. If  there’s a machine leaking oil or a problem somewhere else in the manufacturing process, you don’t just fix the symptoms, you find the root cause… A business perspective is needed in Washington and that’s the one I bring.”

In his first run for any sort of elected office, Senator Johnson defeated Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold in the November 2010 election. He believes there is a real need for more “citizen-legislators” like himself. “At some point in time, good people need to get involved and stay involved…We need more citizen-legislators in Washington — people who have had a real working life and have raised a family.”

Senator Johnson was asked by an audience member, “What does ’get involved, stay involved’ mean for SPI and the plastics industry?” He responded, “You are vital to providing information to the young staffers of House and Senate members to educate them. That’s what  is important about trade groups: providing information.” 

After discussing issues that ranged from  “the wonder and power of the free market system” to global competition, jobs (“You can’t say you love jobs and then also hate the job creators”), and the national debt crisis, Senator Johnson concluded by telling his plastics industry peers, “This country is something incredibly precious. Will it last? Yes, if good people get involved and stay involved.”

As part of  SPI: The Plastic Industry Trade Association’s three-day Fall 2010 National Board Meeting, members brought their voices, insights and concerns to Capitol Hill on September 15th.  Taking place just two months before the November elections, this was an ideal opportunity for the plastics industry to make an impact with their Senators and Representatives.

In all, 53 people representing SPI member companies visited nearly 50 distinct congressional offices — telling plastics’ story as the third largest manufacturing sector in the nation.  SPI members discussed a wide range of business issues with legislators, including energy, the R&D Tax Credit,  Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform, health care, cap and trade bills and a host of regional or state-specific concerns. One item that seemed to be on everybody’s mind was jobs, jobs, jobs! 

It was important for SPI members to educate lawmakers about the plastics industry and remind them that our industry employs more than 1 million people. The visits also established SPI members as industry and business experts whom legislators should consult when in need of accurate information on a variety of critical issues.

Yesterday I went to the White House to celebrate a hard-earned victory for job creation and the competitive hopes of American plastics manufacturers. I  felt a real sense of pride and progress as I sat in the East Room and watched President Barack Obama formally sign the Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010 into law.

I was honored to be at the signing ceremony because SPI’s advocacy team, aided by our dedicated members, worked tirelessly for more than two years to strongly encourage Congress to pass the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (H.R. 4380). The legislation renews a number of expired tariff measures and reduces duties on manufacturing materials (including several essential to the plastics industry) that are not produced domestically, thus lowering costs for U.S. manufacturers. The bill, now formally named the Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010, was approved by both the U.S. House and Senate in late July.

While this one law won’t sweep away all of the challenges our industry currently faces, it marks real progress toward leveling the playing field for U.S. plastics manufacturers competing in the global marketplace. It will cut the cost of doing business for SPI members and the entire U.S. plastics industry. Free from the burden of tariffs on manufacturing inputs not produced  in the U.S., plastics companies will find it less challenging to maintain or increase their current workforce, spur investments and eventually help turn the tide in the nation’s economic recovery.

Signing ceremonies like this are the end result of a long advocacy process that involves being engaged with Congress from the start and making sure our industry’s collective voice is heard.  On September 15th our industry will have another opportunity to engage with Congress and have our voices heard — in face-to-face meetings on Capitol Hill.

On September 15th SPI members from across the country will gather in Washington, D.C. for an organized day of meetings with their elected representatives that will be followed by a reception. By taking the time to visit with lawmakers, we have an opportunity to educate them about the key policy issues that are challenging our companies – from energy to TSCA to R&D Tax Credits to a host of international trade concerns and more. Having just returned from their summer recess, legislators will be busy moving on these issues before the rapidly-approaching mid-term elections.

September 15th will be an excellent time for our industry to tell our story, remind Congress that the third largest manufacturing sector is critical to revitalizing the nation’s economy, and plant seeds so that we can celebrate more legislative victories (and signing ceremonies!) in the future.

Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly one to 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Over the past several years the field of nanotechnology has continued to evolve at a rapid pace. As a follow-up to my last nanotechnology blog, I wanted to update readers about the latest activities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is the program established in fiscal year 2001 to coordinate Federal nanotechnology research and development here in the U.S.  Today the NNI consists of the individual and cooperative nanotechnology-related activities of 25 federal agencies with a range of research and regulatory roles and responsibilities. The NNI as a program does not fund research; however, it informs and influences the Federal budget and planning processes through its member agencies.

In terms of nanotechnology funding, the total investment by NNI member agencies for 2011 is nearly $1.8 billion for nanotechnology R&D. According to the recently issued report entitled NNI Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget, the document highlights Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives to accelerate nanotechnology development in support of the President’s priorities and innovation strategy. NNI member agencies identified areas for these initiatives ripe for significant advances through close and targeted program-level interagency collaboration.

You may be wondering “how I can provide my input as to what the NNI and the related agencies plan next in regards to nanotechnology?” I highly encourage you to attend the NNI’s Strategic Planning Stakeholder Workshop which will be held July 13-14 in Arlington, Va.  The goals of this event are to:

1. Bring together those who are new to nanoscale science, engineering and technology as well as those familiar with the NNI; 
2. Obtain stakeholder input regarding the goals and objectives of an updated NNI Strategic Plan; and 
3. Gather suggestions to the U.S. Government interagency task force that is drafting the new plan. Let your voice be heard!

In addition, in order to help members keep up-to-date on the various activities of the NNI and other nanotechnology organizations around the globe, I recommend that they become part of SPI’s Nanotechnology Group. The group’s mission is to provide a forum for nanotechnology resin and additive suppliers, processors and equipment suppliers within SPI to address nanotechnology issues, activities and opportunities related to the plastics industry. Also to learn more about nanotechnology and the plastics industry you can listen to SPI’s recent “Business of Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology 101” webinar. 

Nanotechnology is an exciting and evolutionary area. In my opinion, big changes continue to occur in the small world of nanotechnology.

Congress has re-opened critical dialogue on food safety with consideration of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2749), which passed the House of Representatives on July 30, 2009. Furthermore, with the proposed Food Safety Modernization Act  (S. 510) pending in the Senate, there is mounting concern that some may seek to bring food packaging into the fold of proposed legislation. 

In view of food packaging’s tremendous technical complexity and pivotal role in ensuring food safety and security in the U.S. and around the world, it is essential that lawmakers reviewing the regulation of food packaging rely on the extensive technical expertise and commitment to sound science among professionals at domestic regulatory agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,  trade associations like SPI and professional societies like the Institute of Food Technologists, the Society of Toxicology and the American Chemical Society.

Food packaging and its component substances have been regulated by FDA for more than 50 years, and in that time there has never been a documented adverse food safety event precipitated by a technical failure in food packaging.  Food packaging is carefully designed to be effective in preventing food spoilage and contamination while having limited transfer of its component substances to the food it contacts, and it is subject to an extensive premarket approval process at FDA that considers chemistry, toxicology, environmental impact and dietary exposure data as part of a detailed risk assessment. 

As threats to food security continually emerge through terrorism, drought and famine, food packaging plays a continually evolving role in helping to ensure a safe and abundant food supply that can be efficiently distributed to the world’s people. Think of the volumes of life-saving canned foods and bottled water that have been shipped to Haiti in the wake of the January 12th earthquake.

The availability of safe and effective food packaging and the innovation of improved food packaging should not be compromised by frameworks based on perceived versus scientifically documented risks.  Lawmakers should carefully consider available science to ensure that food-contact substances and packaging technologies that have protected our food for decades may continue to be used in the absence of scientifically credible toxicological threats to consumers.