Notice of objection: Amcor Packaging Canada Inc. (Amcor Brampton)

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P.
Minister of the Environment
c/o The Executive Director Program Development and Engagement Division
Department of the Environment
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3

eccc.substances.eccc@canada.ca

RE: Notice of Objection and Request for Board of Review in relation to the Proposed Order to add plastic manufactured items to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 154, Number 41: Order Adding a Toxic Substance to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

I am the Plant Director for Amcor Brampton, which is part of the Amcor Packaging Canada Ltd. Our parent company is Amcor which is a global leader in developing and producing responsible packaging for food, beverage, pharmaceutical, medical, home- and personal-care, and other products. We have 230 facilities in over 40 countries. Last year we had over 12.5 Billion USD in sales.

Amcor is also a member of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada’s (CIAC) Plastics Division, which represents Canada’s leaders in plastics industry sustainability - a $28 billion sector that directly employs over 93,000 Canadians.

Amcor Packaging Canada Ltd.

• formally objects to the Proposed Order
• requests the establishment of a Board of Review to review the recommendation

Lack of Screening Assessment:

The final science assessment of plastic pollution is not / does not fulfill the requirement for:

• a screening assessment, and/or
• a screening assessment of all ‘plastic manufactured items’ (insufficient basis for the broad category identified in the Proposed Order)
• The screening assessment is incredibly important part of the CMP process as it would allow the review and understanding of the full stake holder needs and requirements for food and overall health and environmental safety.

A draft screening level risk assessment (DSLRA) would:

• have a different conclusion;
• would not have led to such a broad designation;
• show a significant weight of evidence to suggest that the risk to the environment is not from plastic manufactured items; and
• show that the risk is not related to the physical/chemical properties of the designated items
• opportunities for recycling business development and leadership.

Other inconsistencies in established CMP process for adding substances to Schedule 1:

• Not offered for public comment in draft form
• A draft would have allowed for a in-depth analysis of the consequences as well as potential opportunities.

Plastic manufactured items are not toxic

The Proposed Order

• not as specific as Science Assessment, which correctly identifies the potential harm of plastic pollution in the environment
• applies to every single piece of plastic in Canada, without exception, regardless of how it is disposed
• recycling can be enhanced and supported and provide economical improvements.

Risk to the environment

• does not come from the item, but from behaviours, decisions and/or contract obligations of consumers, waste management groups and municipalities.
• Intervening steps that must occur before alleged risk to environment presents:
  • the plastic manufactured item has to be used by a consumer;
  • the plastic manufactured item has to be improperly disposed of;
  • poor municipal waste management practices could also contribute
  • economic incentives for recycling must become built into the economy
• Declaring plastic manufactured items as toxic when these acts contribute to the adverse outcome ignores the true cause(s) of the unacceptable risk OR The true cause(s) of the unacceptable risk are disregarded in this proposal

Tradition of CMP: materials are not found to be toxic when the exposures of concern do not emanate from an intended use

• the identified risk does not come from the plastic item itself; it is from disposal after intended use.

Science approach document

• published without a complete view of the best available science OR lacks a comprehensive review of scientific literature
• DSLRA approach would have:
  • led to a more fulsome review of scientific literature and application/contextualization to pollution in Canada
  • would not have concluded that all plastic manufactured plastic items have the potential to cause ecological harm
  • that recycling is an opportunity for improved resource utilization
• designation must be more precise to target individual concerns
  • plastics is not the problem but the solution to many problems

Strengthening science in decision-making:

Scientific panel

• should be established to review government’s work
• has no vested political interest in the outcome of the investigation
• government admitted to scientific gaps in Science Assessment that preclude the ability to conduct a quantitative risk assessment - panel could fill these gaps
• Moving ahead with significant data gaps is not overly precautionary
• consistent with the Prime Minister’s instructions in the Minister’s mandate letter to ensure that “(t)he Government of Canada is committed to strengthen science in government decision-making and to support scientists’ vital work.”
• ECCC’s Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Markets, and Waste (2019) indicates that plastic leakage (pollution) into the environment from Canada is 1 per cent.

A few main points that I want to emphasize; food and healthcare products are longer lasting and retain their economic value longer because of the packaging that has been developed. The recycling of plastics allows for the reduction of costs and the improvement of environment, once produced, certain plastics can be reused over and over with minimal resource investment. In conclusion, I am available for discussion, myself and others of the Amcor team are available and willing to join and assist with any discussion and panel involvement.

Sincerely,

Arnold Anderson; P.Eng
Plant Director
Amcor Brampton