Editing Extended producer responsibility (section)

===Disadvantages===
Some people have concerns about extended producer responsibility programs for complex electronics that can be difficult to safely recycle, such as [[Lithium-ion polymer battery|lithium-ion polymer batteries]].<ref name="seven"/> Others worry that such laws could increase the cost of electronics because producers would add recycling costs into the initial price tag.<ref name="seven"/> When companies are required to transport their products to a recycling facility, it can be expensive if the product contains hazardous materials and does not have a scrap value, such as with CRT televisions, which can contain up to five pounds of lead.<ref>{{cite web |title=Why do CRT monitors contain lead?|date=2001-07-12 |url=http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question678.htm |publisher=How Stuff Works |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2012-05-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503022909/http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question678.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> Organizations and researchers against EPR claim that the mandate would slow innovation and impede technological progress.<ref name="seven"/>

Other critics<ref>{{cite web |author-last=Rivera |author-first=Ray |title=Mayor Calls Electronics Recycling Bill 'Illegal' |url=http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/mayor-says-hell-ignore-veto-on-electronic-recycling/#comment-39647 |work=City Room |date=2008-02-15 |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2012-04-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419072047/http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/mayor-says-hell-ignore-veto-on-electronic-recycling/#comment-39647 |url-status=live}}</ref> are concerned that manufacturers may use takeback programs to take secondhand electronics off the reuse market, by shredding rather than reusing or repairing goods that come in for recycling. Another argument against EPR is that EPR policies are not accelerating environmentally friendly designs because "manufacturers are already starting to moving toward reduced material-use per unit of output, reduced energy use in making and delivering each product, and improved environmental performance."<ref>Gattuso, Dana, and Schwartz, Joel. "Extended Producer Responsibility." Reason Foundation. Reason Foundation, 2002-06-01. Web. 2015-05-05.</ref>

The [[Reason Foundation]] argues that EPR is not clear in the way fees are established for the particular recycling processes. Fees are set in place to help incentivize recycling, but this may deter the use of manufacturing with better materials for the different electronic products. There are not set fees for certain materials, so confusion occurs when companies do not know what design features to include in their devices.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://reason.org/studies/show/extended-producer-responsibili |title=Extended Producer Responsibility |author-last=Schwartz |author-first=Joel |date=2002-06-01 |website=Reason Foundation |publisher=The Reason Foundation |access-date=2016-05-23 |archive-date=2016-08-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804232614/http://reason.org/studies/show/extended-producer-responsibili |url-status=live}}</ref>