Welcome back to another “rubbish” post! In the past 2 posts, we have looked at sources of wastes and then derived our own definition of “waste pollution”. Today, we shall look at how the Singaporean laws, in particular the Environmental Public Health Act (“EPHA”) defines wastes. Rather than focusing on the “pollution” aspect of “waste pollution”, we wish to discuss an even more fundamental question of what “waste” is. Under section 2, The EPHA defines 2 types of wastes – “waste” and “industrial waste”. This post will only focus on the former, which is more general.
Defining “waste” under the EPHA
“waste” includes —
(a) any substance which constitutes a scrap material or an effluent or other unwanted surplus substance arising from the application of any process; and
(b) any substance or article which requires to be disposed of as being broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled,
and anything which is discarded or otherwise dealt with as if it were waste shall be presumed to be waste unless the contrary is proved (SSO, 1987);
The EPHA defines waste in 2 ways.
The first way (a) and (b) accounts for wastes in all states – solid, liquid and gaseous states – through the words coloured red. This is astute as waste can come in all shapes and forms and focusing on any one state of matter would miss out on certain categories of wastes. In addition to criteria (a), the waste also needs to fulfill criteria (b) where it is “broken, worn out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled” (words coloured purple). This means that wastes, under the first way, cannot be pristine.
The second way (c) is even more general, presuming anything as waste as long as it is being treated as such unless proven otherwise (words coloured blue). We find this definition highly disturbing and problematic. Under the first way of defining “waste”, the substance must be in a non-pristine form. However, this condition is not necessary under the second way of defining “waste”. This means that even items that are usable can be termed waste as long as it is treated as such.
Truly a waste
While we understand the rationale behind the way “waste” is defined, we are angered by its implications. The EPHA defined waste as how we would in our ordinary life. For example, ugly foods are food products that fail to meet the aesthetic standards of consumers or markets. Other than their appearance, however, they are completely edible, but they are often rejected and thrown away (Knott, 2020). This is highly concerning as it would include anything as waste as long as we treat it as such, even if it is something important to us and can provide value. If the way we treat items is based on how we define it, this means that proper functioning products can be treated carelessly and haphazardly merely because we want to. In an era where resources are quickly dwindling (Bawden, 2012), this cannot stand. Perhaps, it is time the law should be redefined, not only for the purpose of governance, but to shine a light of a more ideal future. Let us leave you with something we have been pondering over.
If “waste” is not a result of process but intention, then it should be about time we do some self-reflection and ask ourselves: “What is waste?”
Let us know, what do you define as “waste” below! See you in our next post!
Lee Yang
References
Bawden, T. (2012). Pressure on dwindling resources ‘threatens global chaos’. The Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pressure-dwindling-resources-threatens-global-chaos-8398528.html
Knott, K. (2020). Why we should eat ‘ugly’ food – it helps reduce shocking global food waste, and the fruit and vegetables taste just the same. SCMP. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/food-drink/article/3077277/why-we-should-eat-ugly-food-it-helps-reduce-shocking-global
SSO. (1987). Environmental Public Health Act. Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EPHA1987.