In late July, Michigan House Rep. Abraham Aiyash introduced House Bill 5902, which proposes sweeping mandates on packaging reduction and recycling. At first blush, expanding recycling might sound noble. However, a closer look shows the bill would hurt the state’s economy and grow a bureaucracy to enforce arbitrary targets while providing little (if any) environmental benefit.

HB 5902 creates a costly regulatory bureaucracy that will be difficult to dismantle. The bill charges the state’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy with establishing and enforcing rules, assessing fees, and determining what constitutes recyclable materials. The bill also mandates the creation of a Packaging Reduction and Recycling Program, which imposes rigid targets for reducing packaging material. The bill requires companies to achieve a mandated 10% reduction two years after registering, increasing to 50% over the following decade.

Companies that sell goods in Michigan would be required to register with a state-approved packaging reduction organization, which will oversee the program under a 10-year exclusive contract. These companies must report the weight of their packaging to the organization, and fees will be imposed based on the weight of the packaging they report. Fees collected would be paired with penalties imposed for noncompliance; both would go into a new packaging reduction fund.

The bill also mandates that at least 25% of these funds be funneled to “environmental justice communities,” which could lead to politically motivated allocations of taxpayer dollars. Finally, the bill creates an Office of Inspector General within EGLE to monitor compliance.

The financial implications of HB 5902 are significant. By forcing producers to reduce packaging by up to 50%, the bill ignores the fact that businesses are already incentivized to package their goods efficiently. Packaging is a cost of doing business, but it also plays a critical role in ensuring product safety, quality, and shelf life. Mandated reductions in packaging will disrupt operations and increase production costs.

The bill compounds these challenges by requiring businesses to use “less toxic” packaging materials and mandating that ten new toxic substances be banned from packaging every three years. Ten new banned chemicals every three years is an arbitrary and unscientific target that will render many packaging materials unusable.

Hurdles imposed by HB 5902 will hurt businesses and consumers by increasing prices on every packaged good. Michigan families will bear these costs as every product they buy, from groceries to medicines to household goods, becomes more expensive. Small businesses, which often lack the resources to absorb expansive mandates, will be particularly vulnerable.

The bill also requires increasingly strict levels of recycling: 30% within five years, 50% within eight years, and 70% within twelve years after the law comes into force. While recycling may appear to be a win for the environment, many forced recycling programs are inefficient, energy-intensive, and ultimately ineffective. Recycled materials often end up in landfills anyway, undermining the initiative's claimed purpose.

This bill seriously threatens Michigan’s long-term competitiveness and creates a new class of rent-seeking interests—organizations and contractors benefiting from government-mandated fees and programs. These groups will have every incentive to lobby for the program’s perpetuation, regardless of its effectiveness. Meanwhile, higher costs of packaged goods and cumbersome regulations will make Michigan less attractive to every other business. Companies considering expanding or relocating to Michigan may opt for states with fewer regulatory hurdles and lower costs. This erosion of Michigan’s business climate will harm job creation and economic growth.

HB 5902 is a misguided attempt to legislate environmental progress through top-down mandates and bureaucratic expansion. The bill’s packaging reduction and recycling requirements would impose significant costs on businesses and consumers while offering few measurable environmental benefits. The program will create and entrench a bloated regulatory system that will siphon resources away from Michigan’s families and entrepreneurs.

Michigan’s lawmakers should reject this costly and counterproductive legislation. The state can and should pursue environmental solutions that are market-driven, efficient, and genuinely beneficial to its residents. Mandates like those in HB 5902 are not the answer.

For more insights into the hidden costs of recycling mandates, visit our blog post: There’s a Reason Recycling Has to Be Mandated.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.