Jobs, jobs, and jobs: That’s all we hear, and it makes sense. We need a bunch more jobs than we have. Unless you’re in New York City, that is.

On September 13, 2012, the New York City Board of Health put hundreds of American manufacturing jobs at risk when it approved a ban on the sale of large sodas and other drinks at restaurants, street carts, and movie theaters, the first regulation of its kind in the country. Championed by the city’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, the restriction is aimed at America’s rising obesity rates, and is scheduled to take effect on March 12, 2013, unless it is blocked prior to that date.

Members of SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association include the many American companies, mostly small- and medium-sized enterprises, that make up the supply chain for plastic products made in the USA. That includes those making plastic bottles and cups of every size and type.

SPI opposes this proposed ban for good reasons, both economic and societal. We all are well aware of the obesity problem across America, but whether or not the Big Apple’s ban on large, sweet beverages is a solution is questionable. What’s clear is that the regulation itself is problematic.

SPI member companies in the New York City region that make plastic bottles and drinking cups are almost certain to be negatively impacted by this regulation, as are many other people in the region. According to statistics released by the New York State Department of Labor on August 16^th, New York has regained all the private sector jobs it lost in the recession, while the country as a whole has regained only 44%. Maybe New York City is feeling bulletproof about jobs. It shouldn’t.

SPI’s latest “Size and Impact of the Plastics Industry on the U.S. Economy” report shows that in New York State during 2011 there were 18 facilities manufacturing plastic bottles. They employed more than 900 people total, but even that is not the full picture. In the tri-state region of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, generally known as the greater NYC metro area, there are 35 plastic bottle manufacturing facilities. They employ more than 2,500 people, many of them the main support of a family. Jobs will be at risk from this quirky ban.

The value of products shipped by those 35 bottle manufacturing plants was $826 million in 2011. Their total payroll for the year was $112 million, and it is well established that every manufacturing job supports a minimum of three other jobs, and often more.

SPI also opposes this level of intrusive government regulation in the lives of American citizens. This nit-picky social engineering goes contrary to American ideals—freedom for example. And seriously, aren’t there at least a couple cialis buy online dozen more urgent problems that governments should be working on?

And if this regulation is implemented, then what? At a minimum, we probably can expect the number of ounces to be further reduced later, after little or no reduction in obesity is seen. But will the city government then move on to dictate portion sizes served in restaurants, or how many of a

particular item you can buy at one time in a supermarket?

Shortly after the Board of Health’s vote, Mayor Bloomberg was quoted by the New York Times as saying, ‘It’s certainly not the last step that lots of cities are going to take, and we believe that it will help save lives.’ The first part of the mayor’s statement is what should concern us. How many more ‘steps’ might be taken to regulate individual Americans? Impossible to say, but SPI will continue to support those who oppose this intrusive and short-sighted regulation, especially those taking action to block it.Rich Text AreaToolbarBold (Ctrl / Alt+Shift + B)Italic (Ctrl / Alt+Shift + I)Strikethrough (Alt+Shift+D)Unordered list (Alt+Shift+U)Ordered list (Alt+Shift+O)Blockquote (Alt+Shift+Q)Align Left (Alt+Shift+L)Align Center (Alt+Shift+C)Align Right (Alt+Shift+R)Insert/edit link (Alt+Shift+A)Unlink (Alt+Shift+S)Insert More Tag (Alt+Shift+T)Toggle spellchecker (Alt+Shift+N)▼
Toggle fullscreen mode (Alt+Shift+G)Show/Hide Kitchen Sink (Alt+Shift+Z)Insert a form
FormatFormat▼
UnderlineAlign Full (Alt+Shift+J)Select text color▼
Paste as Plain TextPaste from WordRemove formattingInsert custom characterOutdentIndentUndo (Ctrl+Z)Redo (Ctrl+Y)Help (Alt+Shift+H)

Jobs, jobs, and jobs: That’s all we hear, and it makes sense. We need a bunch more jobs than we have. Unless you’re in New York City, that is.

New York, America’s largest city, displays some very small thinking.On September 13, 2012, the New York City Board of Health put hundreds of American manufacturing jobs at risk when it approved a ban on the sale of large sodas and other drinks at restaurants, street carts, and movie theaters, the first regulation of its kind in the country. Championed by the city’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, the restriction is aimed at America’s rising obesity rates, and is scheduled to take effect on March 12, 2013, unless it is blocked prior to that date.
Members of SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association include the many American companies, mostly small- and medium-sized enterprises, that make up the supply chain for plastic products made in the USA. That includes those making plastic bottles and cups of every size and type.
SPI opposes this proposed ban for good reasons, both economic and societal. We all are well aware of the obesity problem across America, but whether or not the Big Apple’s ban on large, sweet beverages is a solution is questionable. What’s clear is that the regulation itself is problematic.
SPI member companies in the New York City region that make plastic bottles and drinking cups are almost certain to be negatively impacted by this regulation, as are many other people in the region. According to statistics released by the New York State Department of Labor on August 16th, New York has regained all the private sector jobs it lost in the recession, while the country as a whole has regained only 44%. Maybe New York City is feeling bulletproof about jobs. It shouldn’t.
SPI’s latest “Size and Impact of the Plastics Industry on the U.S. Economy” report shows that in New York State during 2011 there were 18 facilities manufacturing plastic bottles. They employed more than 900 people total, but even that is not the full picture. In the tri-state region of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, generally known as the greater NYC metro area, there are 35 plastic bottle manufacturing facilities. They employ more than 2,500 people, many of them the main support of a family. Jobs will be at risk from this quirky ban.
The value of products shipped by those 35 bottle manufacturing plants was $826 million in 2011. Their total payroll for the year was $112 million, and it is well established that every manufacturing job supports a minimum of three other jobs, and often more.
SPI also opposes this level of intrusive government regulation in the lives of American citizens. This nit-picky social engineering goes contrary to American ideals—freedom for example. And seriously, aren’t there at least a couple dozen more urgent problems that governments should be working on?
And if this regulation is implemented, then what? At a minimum, we probably can expect the number of ounces to be further reduced later, after little or no reduction in obesity is seen. But will the city government then move on to dictate portion sizes served in restaurants, or how many of a particular item you can buy at one time in a supermarket?
Shortly after the Board of Health’s vote, Mayor Bloomberg was quoted by the New York Times as saying, ‘It’s certainly not the last step that lots of cities are going to take, and we believe that it will help save lives.’ The first part of the mayor’s statement is what should concern us. How many more ‘steps’ might be taken to regulate individual Americans? Impossible to say, but SPI will continue to support those who oppose this intrusive and short-sighted regulation, especially those taking action to block it.
Path:

When plastics industry leaders met with Senators, Representatives, and Congressional staffers on July 25, 2012 during the SPI Congressional Fly-In, one of the key discussion topics was the continuing increase in federal regulations on U.S. manufacturing in general, and on the plastics sector in particular.

While most acknowledge that the burden created by  federal regulations is already heavy and continuing to grow, the details had not been well quantified until now. The Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI) commissioned NERA Economic Consulting to examine the qualitative and quantitative impacts of federal regulations on the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Not only are the negative impacts severe, and the number of regulations, both major and minor ones, has been rising steadily for some time, as is evident in this graph:

New Major & Non-Major Federal Regulations on Manufacturing, 1981-2012

Since 1998, according the NERA report, the cumulative inflation-adjusted cost of compliance with major manufacturing-related regulations grew at an annualized rate of 7.6%. Over this same period, annual growth in the physical volume of manufacturing sector output averaged only 0.4%, while U.S. inflation-adjusted GDP growth averaged 2.2% a year.

From 1993 through 2011, 1,110 manufacturing new regulations were promulgated. The estimated cost of compliance for the manufacturing sector in that period was $1,353 billion, which was 1.4% of the $94,641 billion in manufacturing shipments during that period.

The MAPI/NERA study’s cost findings are based solely on major regulations because the federal government does not track costs of non-major regulations. However, since about 95% of all regulations are not major, NERA suggests that their aggregate cost burden could be as large as that of the major regulations.

The agencies generating the highest regulatory costs for manufacturers from 1993 to 2011 were:

1. Environmental Protection Agency  — $117 billion
2. Department of Transportation — $25 billion
3. Department of Health & Human Services — $10 billion
4. Department of Homeland Security — $7 billion
5. Department of Energy — $5 billion
6. Department of Labor — $3 billion

 Plastics Industry Is Hit Hard

While SPI President & CEO Bill Carteaux was attending a briefing on the MAPI/NERA Regulations Impact Report last week, he tweeted out two of the plastics-related stats that, for obvious reasons, jumped out at him. Federal regulations will reduce the output of the plastics sector by almost 6% over the next decade and cost the industry more than $10 billion in 2012 alone. And regarding America’s critical foreign trade balance, federal regulations will reduce plastics sector exports by almost 18% in 2012 alone.

Since federal regulations still are on the increase, their impacts are sure to continue past the end of this year. For a detailed picture, you can download

the full NERA study from the MAPI website. While we can’t call it enjoyable reading, we nonetheless recommend it highly, and sincerely thank MAPI and NERA for the excellent research and report.



Recently I had an outstanding opportunity to meet with key leaders of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD.  NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was founded in 1901 as the nation’s first federal physical science research laboratory. Over the years, the scientists and technical staff at NIST have made major contributions to image processing, DNA diagnostic “chips,” smoke detectors, atomic clocks, X-ray standards for mammography, and pollution-control technology. The individuals I met with are some of the brightest scientists in the U.S.

The meeting was coordinated by key individuals in NIST’s Polymers Division which is the largest organization within NIST specifically serving SPI members and the overall plastics industry. I talked with NIST about the major role that the plastics industry plays as the third largest manufacturing sector in the U.S., work that NIST is undertaking specific to plastics, and opportunities for SPI and its members to work more closely with NIST. I was amazed at the range of projects that NIST undertakes – from cutting edge scientific research to programs specifically geared to help grow U.S. manufacturing.  So plastics industry professionals, are you aware of all that NIST offers you? Take a look at these examples:

Programs Established for Joint Industry/Government Partnerships

• As I’ve blogged about previously, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a nationwide network of centers to assist small and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers to help them create and retain jobs, increase profits, and save time and money. The nationwide network provides a variety of services, from innovation strategies to process improvements to green manufacturing. MEP also works with partners at the state and federal levels on programs that put manufacturers in position to develop new customers, expand into new markets and create new products.  
• The Technology Innovation Program (TIP) is a grant program where NIST and industry partners cost share the early-stage development of innovative but high-risk technologies.  On the horizon and pending approval of the FY 2012 budget, TIP expects to hold funding competitions in one or more of the following research areas: manufacturing, advanced robotics and intelligent automation, civil infrastructure, energy, healthcare, water.  SPI will keep its members posted when the competition is announced.

User Facilities Open to Industry

• NIST’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) performs research in nanotechnology, both through internal research efforts and by running a user-accessible cleanroom nanomanufacturing facility. This ‘NanoFab’ is equipped with tools for lithographic patterning and imaging (e.g. electron microscopes and atomic force microscopes).  The CNST’s shared-use NanoFab gives researchers economical access to and training on a state-of-the-art tool set required for cutting-edge nanotechnology development. The simple application process is designed to get projects started in a few weeks.
• The neutron science user facility called the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) provides scientists access to a variety of neutron scattering instruments, which are used in many fields of research (materials science, fuel cells, biotechnology, etc.).  This type of equipment, is crucial to fully understanding industrial commodity and specialty polymers to better understand structure, dynamics and other properties.  Some SPI members have tapped into the NCNR, but many more opportunities still exist.

Measurements and Standards

How are you sure that your company is measuring melt flow rate correctly?  Or how do you know you have the right molecular weight calibration for a polymer?  NIST can help you out here.  As part of its mission, NIST supplies industry, academia, government, and other users with over 1,300 Standard Reference Materials (SRMs). These artifacts are certified as having specific characteristics or component content, used as calibration standards for measuring equipment and procedures, quality control benchmarks for industrial processes, and experimental control samples.  So if you want to make sure you are measuring certain properties the right way, tap into NIST’s resources. Also, don’t forget about the Material Measurement Laboratory, whose activities range from fundamental and applied research on the composition, structure and properties of industrial, biological and environmental materials and processes to the development of best practice guides that help assure measurement quality. 

NIST has a number of other plastics related groups such as the Polymeric Materials Group (which develops and implements methodologies and metrologies for determining the scientific origins of materials degradation required for predicting the service life of polymeric materials, components, and systems exposed in their intended or accelerated exposure environments), the Sustainable Composites Project (focused on the development of tools to measure the fundamental structure-processing and structure -property relations associated with sustainable polymer composites), and much more. 

My meetings were just the beginning steps in growing the relationship between SPI and NIST.  SPI wants to ensure that the plastics industry doesn’t miss out on great opportunities to work with some of the world’s brightest scientists to advance the industry.