« 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 - Franklin 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: # | %

Franklin County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
13,546
20,968
1,505 36,019
Ashfield
 
547
420
23
990
Bernardston
 
283
752
36
1,071
Buckland
 
370
655
21
1,046
Charlemont
 
300
308
21
629
Colrain
 
340
520
21
881
Conway
 
514
460
23
997
Deerfield
 
1,131
1,785
88
3,004
Erving
 
214
532
25
771
Gill
 
310
458
17
785
Greenfield
 
2,525
5,445
658
8,628
Hawley
 
56
101
4
161
Heath
 
139
216
9
364
Leverett
 
734
345
38
1,117
Leyden
 
142
228
11
381
Monroe
 
18
43
6
67
Montague
 
1,389
2,572
147
4,108
New Salem
 
229
234
13
476
Northfield
 
617
918
45
1,580
Orange
 
932
2,293
88
3,313
Rowe
 
70
149
13
232
Shelburne
 
437
587
39
1,063
Shutesbury
 
666
292
16
974
Sunderland
 
741
784
76
1,601
Warwick
 
186
205
26
417
Wendell
 
333
150
9
492
Whately
 
323
516
32
871
County Totals
13,546
20,968
1,505 36,019