The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0482.335 2024-2026NSF International 789 N. Dixboro Road NSF Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-9723 Telephone: +1 734 769 8010 USA Website: nsf.org The Honorable Dr. Holeka Inaba, Chair and Members of Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street o aM Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 0C C-) December 1, 2025 ` r Subject: Comments and Recommendations On Hawai'i County Bill 83 (Draft 2) Dear Honorable Chair Inaba and Esteemed Members of the Hawai'i County Council, NSF appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on Hawaii County Bill 83 (Draft 2)- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE Hawaii COUNTY CODE 1983 (2076 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO PLASTIC AND POLYSTYRENE WASTE. NSF commends and supports the Council's efforts to promote a more sustainable and healthy environment for its constituents. However, NSF opposes Bill 83 (Draft 2) unless it is amended to address concerns that the bill's language limits the purchasing options for compostable goods when other equivalent options are available. NSF is an independent, not -for -profit organization founded in 1944 in Ann Arbor, MI. We develop consensus national standards and provide product inspection, testing and certification, auditing, education, and related services in the public health and safety sphere. The core purpose and mission of NSF is "To Improve Global Human and Planet Health." As part of this work, we evaluate and certify products to established national compostability standards. For background context, here are some details: • NSF's program verifies compostability claims and grants the use of the NSF Verified Environmental Claim Mark, which requires clear claim language and demonstrates independent third -party verification. • Verified products are publicly listed on www.NSF.org, enabling transparency and easy claim verification for purchasers and regulators. NSF's certification process aligns with established ASTM standards and includes additional safeguards, such as verification of no intentionally added PFAS. More details are available at https://www. nsf.ora/sustainabil ity/product-susta ina bility/verification-compo stability- no- intentionally-added-pfas-claims We respectfully request the Council's consideration of our opposing position and proposed amendments to the current proposed language as follows. Comm. .ZS Ref. To: 1 Ref. Date C - 3 025 NSF Item Of Opposition: Limited Certification Options Current Proposed Language, Bill 83 (Draft 2),Section 5: Section 20- 05- 02. Use of reusable or compostable rf^:;ee-wafe] foodware and serviceware required. Any food provider, business, or County facility user selling, distributing, or otherwise providing prepared food to the public shall do so using disposable foodware or with disposable serviceware that Is CMA-certified or visibly labeled as compostable with a BPI certification mark, or foodware or serviceware that is reusable. Rationale For Opposition: 1. Concerns with Restrictive Certification References Bill 83's current language names only two certifiers—CMA and BPI —as acceptable for compliance. This approach is problematic because it prioritizes brand recognition over technical standards. Other reputable programs, such as NSF, apply Identical or equivalent testing protocols aligned with ASTM D6400 and D6868, yet would be excluded under the bill. By endorsing specific private entities rather than referencing recognized standards and allowing certification by any qualified, independent third party, the bill Conflates brand recognition with technical equivalence and creates a de facto vendor lock -in. This does not enhance environmental rigor but instead introduces structural barriers to fair competition, discourages innovation in certification practices, and undermines regulatory neutrality. Governments typically avoid codifying private brands in statutory text for precisely these reasons — doing so limits flexibility and creates unnecessary compliance complexity. 2. Impacts on Market Access and Consumer Choice Restricting recognition to CMA and BPI will significantly reduce market access for manufacturers who already meet ASTM standards through other accredited programs. These exclusions would force duplicative testing and fees, adding cost and delays without any environmental benefit. For businesses and consumers, this translates into fewer product options and higher prices. Local businesses and county facilities may face procurement bottlenecks and cost escalation risks, particularly under tight budget cycles. A certifier -neutral, standards -based framework would expand compliant supply, lower costs, and preserve consumer choice —all while maintaining the ordinance's environmental objectives. Proposed Solutions (Two Options) Note: Underline with blue highlight represents proposed new language, strikethrough used for deletion. Option 1 Section 3: Page 2 of 4 Section 5: Section 20-05-02. Use of ffeeye4eblel reusable or compostable ffeed-sef+ficc ::'c'_1 foodware and serviceware required. Any food provider, business, or County facility user selling, distributing, or otherwise providing prepared food to the public shall do so using disposable foodware or with disposable serviceware that is GMA eerfWed or vlslb4, lel3eled as eempesteble Mth ff BPI 6eFW6aN6R FROF46 certified rby a hon=profit third-AaftWe&0, to'mee M&M.standards W'6400_or D6868, or food ware or serviceware that is reusable. Rationale For Amendments To achieve the bill's environmental objectives without creating unnecessary market barriers, we strongly recommend adopting a certifier -neutral, standards -based framework. Referencing ASTM D6400 and D6868 as the compliance benchmarks —and allowing certification by any qualified, independent third party —ensures technical Integrity while preserving regulatory neutrality. This approach expands the pool of compliant products, lowers costs for manufacturers and consumers, and encourages innovation in certification practices, all while still ensuring compliance with recognized standards. Standards -based language helps future -proof this bill as it allows for evolving certification landscapes and improvements via updated standards without requiring legislative revisions. Equally important, it delivers the intended environmental benefits without endorsing specific private entities or restricting market access. In referencing the ASTM standards rather than certifying organizations, it is no longer necessary to have the definitions for BPI and CMA, so they are proposed to be stricken. Option 2 Section 3: Page 3 of 4 NSF Section 5: Section 20-05-02. Use of (feeyekFble] reusable or compostable rf,-ee�;ie ] foodware and serviceware required. Any food provider, business, or County facility user selling, distributing, or otherwise providing prepared food to the public shall do so using disposable foodware or with disposable serviceware that is CMA-certified,ISF.-certifie or visibly labeled as compostable with a BPI certification mark, or foodware or serviceware that is reusable. Rationale For Amendments While it's not as comprehensive as the general specification language in Option 1, much of the justification remains the same. This addition provides another certifying option for manufacturers and purchasers of compostable goods. It also retains all of the existing language while adding a definition for "NSF -certified" to mirror the "CMA-certified" definition. Summary To achieve the bill's environmental objectives without creating unnecessary market barriers, we strongly recommend adopting a certifier -neutral, standards -based framework. Referencing ASTM D6400 and D6868 as the compliance benchmarks —and allowing certification by any qualified, independent third party —ensures technical integrity while preserving regulatory neutrality. This approach expands the pool of compliant products, lowers costs for manufacturers and consumers, encourages innovation in certification practices, and future -proofs the ordinance. Most importantly, it delivers the intended environmental benefits without endorsing specific private entities or restricting market access. We urge the Council to adopt this amendment to help ensure the bill achieves its environmental objectives without unnecessarily excluding equivalent credible certification programs. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. NSF remains available to provide additional information or participate in further discussions that you deem necessary or helpful. Sincerely, Derek DeLand, MPH, REHS/RS Environmental Health Programs Manager, Government Affairs NSF e: ddeland@nsf.org p:734-418-6683 Page 4 of 4