NYS is Considering a Ban on Carbon Black – the Primary Pigment in Black Printing Ink!

The proposed blanket prohibition on carbon black jeopardizes not only thousands of jobs but also the entire economic activity surrounding this sector.?? Learn more, and act now, https://lnkd.in/emP9HZmC

Carbon Black Talking Points

?

-????????? Carbon Black is the primary pigment in black printing ink and is a component in other ink colors as well.

?

-????????? Banning the use of carbon black in printing inks would have a devastating impact on the label and packaging component of the New York State economy.

-????????? This component is comprised of label and packaging manufacturers and employs more than 8,000 people, working at approximately 260 printing and packaging firms with a payroll exceeding $400 million. The annual value of packaging produced in New York State is approximately $2.8 billion.

-????????? A blanket ban on carbon black puts every one of these 8,000 jobs in jeopardy.

-????????? The jobs in question are highly skilled, well-paying manufacturing jobs that carry health benefits, pay mortgages, put children through college, and support the New York State tax base.

-????????? The impetus behind S-4246 B/A 5322 B centers on three main factors. These are:

?????????????????????????????????? ·????????? Carbon black toxicity

?????????????????????????????????? ·????????? Black plastics interference in the mechanical recycling process

?????????????????????????????????? ·????????? “Bleeding” ink during the mechanical recycling process

-????????? Carbon black toxicity – In powder form, carbon black presents concerns related to its toxicity. However, carbon black is not found in powder form when it is incorporated into ink or as a colorant for a package. This important distinction has been recognized by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM) discussed this matter several years ago with OSHA stating:

§? “The Hazard Communication Standard requires that, when mixtures have been tested as a whole, the results of such testing shall be used to determine whether the mixture is hazardous. Furthermore, in the case of printing inks, the carbon black is not present in such a form so as to present an exposure problem for employees.”

?

OSHA’s response to the request from NAPIM shows that carbon black encapsulated in printing ink does not have the same health concerns that carbon black powder presents.

?

The same situation exists with the listing of carbon black under California’s Proposition 65. California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to the public about significant exposures to reproductive toxicants and carcinogens. The notice of listing addressing carbon black was released on February 21, 2003, and it specifically states:

?

?????????????????????????????????? ·????????? “The listing only pertains to airborne, unbound carbon black particles of respirable size” and “Exposure to carbon black does not occur, per se, when bound within a product matrix, such as rubber, ink or paint.”

?

California’s Proposition 65 is administered by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). OEHHA is an independent agency with several responsibilities. OEHHA continually monitors the scientific literature, publications of research organizations, governmental entities and academia, and other information sources to fulfill its mission. Since there has not been any revisions to OEHHA position about carbon black exposure from inks, infer that carbon black does not pose a threat to human health and the environment.

?

-????????? It should be noted that carbon black is a major component in auto and tractor tires, belts, gaskets, paints, coatings, cosmetics, and even some water and air filtration systems. None of these products have any restrictions placed on them regarding the use of carbon black.

-????????? Black plastics interference in the mechanical recycling process – Black plastics are difficult to detect utilizing the current technology in mechanical optical sorters. As such, currently it is not easily separated, with some of the most common sorting technology and most gets landfilled or incinerated. Recent technological advances have made it possible to sort black plastics utilizing various processes including hyper spectral imaging, artificial intelligence, and laser line scanning to identify and separate black plastic.

-????????? Bleeding Ink during the mechanical recycling process- Again, companies are developing new formulations and processes to avoid this problem. These include “washable inks,” primers, coatings, and varnishes – all designed to address the ink “bleeding” issue.

-????????? Call for Revisions to Legislature Provisions – The identification of carbon black as a toxic material without any qualifying statements regarding its form is not appropriate or accurate as carbon black only presents toxicity concerns in an unencapsulated powder form. Several independent agencies have studied this issue and came to their own conclusions that carbon black that is encapsulated or bound in a matrix such as ink does not share the same toxic profile as the powder form. There is no threat to human health and the environment due to the presence of carbon black used to color printing ink.

-????????? Changes in recycling separation technology and ink formulation are quickly solving the problem of black plastic not getting sorted by optical sorters and “bleeding”.

-????????? The inability to use black ink to either print directly on a package or on a label will have significant consequences for the consumer and workplace. Critical information such as product warnings, etc. will not be communicated to the end user.

-????????? S.4246-B/A.5322-B was put forth without meaningful stakeholder input or discussion. There is limited opportunity for stakeholders to provide public comments and for legislators to consider comments and evaluate the bill on its merits.

-????????? If enacted into law, the ban will either increase costs to the New York State consumer or make the affected products unavailable within the state.

-????????? If enacted, most of the affected work will cease to be produced within New York State, effectively eliminating approximately 8,000 jobs. The work will then be produced in other states.

-????????? Label and packaging producers located in these other states will have two choices. One would assume that most would adhere to the ban and no longer ship products whose packaging contains carbon black ink into New York State. This would deprive New York States consumers of the opportunity to purchase a wide variety of products.

In opposition to NY S. 4246-B/A. 5322-B, it is crucial to highlight the indispensable role of carbon black in printing inks for ensuring consumer safety and effective communication on packaging. The proposed legislation overlooks the significant economic impact on New York's printing and packaging industry and the broader implications for consumer information accessibility. Technological solutions have already begun addressing the recycling and environmental concerns attributed to carbon black, suggesting that an outright ban is not only unnecessary but also detrimental to the industry's growth and innovation.

?

Therefore, a call for legislative revisions is warranted, aiming for a more balanced approach that considers the evolving technological landscape and the importance of carbon black in printing applications. Such revisions should focus on promoting innovation and adaptability in addressing environmental concerns without undermining the printing and packaging industry's critical contributions to New York's economy and public safety.

Companies concerned about this issue and wishing to connect with their NYS elected representatives can do so at the PGCA Legislative Action Center (https://www.votervoice.net/PGCA/Campaigns/112658/Respond). It only takes a few minutes and it is so important. Encourage your staff and business colleagues to weigh in as well.

Questions? Contact Tim freeman at PGCA ([email protected] or 716-691-3211)

?

?

?