« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 3

This proposed law would require all packaging used in Massachusetts on or after July 1,1996 to be reduced in size, reusable, or made of materials that have been or could be recycled. The proposed law would provide for exemptions for health, safety, and other reasons and would establish penalties for violations.

Packaging would have to be either reduced in size by at least 25% every five years; or designed to be reusable at least five times, with at least 50% of such packaging actually being reused; or recycled at a 50% rate; or composed of 25% or more of recycled materials (increasing to 35% on July 1, 1999 and 50% on July 1, 2002); or composed of materials being recycled at an annual rate of 25% (increasing to 35% in 1999 and 50% in 2002). The requirements would apply to any packaging or containers used to protect, store, handle, transport, display, or sell products.

These requirements would not be applicable to tamper-resistant or tamper-evident seals; packaging for medication or medical devices; packaging merely being shipped through the state; packaging required by federal or state health or safety laws or regulations; or flexible film packaging necessary to prevent food from spoiling.

The state Department of Environmental Protection could also grant exemptions for packaging that represents an innovative approach for which additional time is needed to meet the requirements of the law; or packaging made of material that cannot be reused or recycled, and cannot be made of recycled material, but is being composted at a significant rate; or products for which there is no complying packaging and for which compliance with the law would impose undue hardship (other than increased cost) on Massachusetts residents. A person applying for an exemption would pay a fee to be used, subject to legislative appropriation, to pay the cost of administering the proposed law.

The Department would be required to issue regulations to carry out the proposed law and would be required to investigate suspected violations. After issuing a warning, the Department could assess administrative penalties of up to $100 for each offense and up to $10,000 for any single shipment or single continuing act of noncompliance. The state Attorney General could also file court actions for civil penalties of up to $500 for each offense and up to $25,000 for any single shipment or continuing act of non-compliance, and could seek a court order requiring compliance. Each non-complying piece of packaging would be considered a separate offense or act of non-compliance.

The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were declared invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect.

1992 - Bristol County - Question 3Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 1992?

View as: # | %

Bristol County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
65,324
133,064
17,126 215,514
Acushnet
 
1,222
3,388
299
4,909
Attleboro
 
5,138
9,557
797
15,492
Berkley
 
719
1,320
77
2,116
Dartmouth
 
3,330
7,338
2,329
12,997
Dighton
 
871
1,859
135
2,865
Easton
 
4,073
6,070
227
10,370
Fairhaven
 
1,908
4,856
1,170
7,934
Fall River
 
8,656
19,558
3,707
31,921
Freetown
 
1,323
2,707
113
4,143
Mansfield
 
3,235
5,318
278
8,831
New Bedford
 
8,892
21,847
2,869
33,608
N. Attleborough
 
3,823
7,063
516
11,402
Norton
 
2,375
4,151
239
6,765
Raynham
 
1,490
3,452
408
5,350
Rehoboth
 
1,661
2,681
224
4,566
Seekonk
 
2,164
4,025
601
6,790
Somerset
 
3,114
6,269
558
9,941
Swansea
 
2,428
5,303
492
8,223
Taunton
 
6,393
12,021
1,634
20,048
Westport
 
2,509
4,281
453
7,243
County Totals
65,324
133,064
17,126 215,514