We are a manufacturer of plastic milk cases for the dairy and water industries. We are very much in favor of the utilitization of post-consumer resin as expounded by Mr. Kopulsky [Perspective, Jan. 16, Page 7]. However, we have to point out two concerns in our product application. If, in an effort to utilize up to 25 percent post-consumer resin in a new product, a manufacturer elects to use less-expensive, lower-quality reground post-consumer material, the net result is de-terioration of the physical function of a crate. In many applications, crates are stacked five cases high on a pallet and three pallets high. If reground post-consumer material is not of good quality, the virgin HDPE has its physical properties deteriorated. Stacked finished products can fall and kill an employee. Reground post-consumer materials are used extensively nationally. The material is less expensive than the post-consumer resin, which in turn may not necessarily be less expensive than the virgin product. It will be interesting to see who is held responsible by the courts for an accident caused by defective product because of a state-promulgated recycling law.
Our second concern is the wonderful,
state-promulgated incentive for post-consumer materials and post-consumer resin to be obtained by the theft of perfectly good milk cases, tote bins and bread trays stacked behind a grocery store.
This concern can be interpreted as a benefit if the ``new'' case goes to the bottler, who delivers it to the grocery store, where it finds its way, ``somehow,'' back to the molder for recycling. The consumer pays for theft, which creates the need for the bottler to buy replacement product to replenish its ``float.''