*1
po
dispute is between the
or primary
em-
sole
disabled
partially
more difficult
See, Marsden v.
parties.
working
positions
tentially
liable
ployees to continue
Mabel,
275,
handling. Ac-
Village
253 N.W.2d
they
capable
which
suggest
Lyon’s
(Minn.1977);
v.
Food Prod
seems advisable
Patnode
cordingly, it
law to
Inc., Minn.,
692,
legislature
ucts,
amend
251 N.W.2d
is not
unfair
prevent
Pemtom, Inc.,
6,
which
result
v.
305 Minn.
(1977); Lease
to those
but detrimental
employers
(1975).
232 N.W.2d
pro-
designed
the statute
employees
Affirmed.
tect.”
If
purpose handicapped persons, provide for access be well advised to
might similarly high-risk employers who hire
employees.
em
also contend
Relators
COMPA-
CREAMERY
LEAF
CLOVER
disability
partial
be
permanent
ployee’s
al.,
NY,
Respondents,
et
injury prior
compensable
personal
came
August 1973 addition
legislature’s
to the
organs
compensable
sched
internal
Minnesota, Appellant.
STATE of
ule,
are not recover
and thus those benefits
No. 48827.
employ
as the
disagree inasmuch
able. We
when
have claimed benefits
ee could not
of Minnesota.
Supreme Court
July 1973
apparent prior to
symptoms were
disease statute
occupational
7, 1979.
Sept.
176.664, re
(Minn.St.1971 §
then in effect
Oct.
Rehearing Denied
12) delayed
pealed by
L.
disability
to
until a
became
compensability
31,1980.
March
Certiorari Granted
recovered bene
tal. Since he claimed and
uled under Minn.St. recovery. denying
there no basis for urge that a subse
While relators in October
quent insurer covered Johnson’s liable, we
1975 and should be believe appeals to find that of the court
failure material time is
it was the insurer which shows
consistent with the evidence exposure occurred before
the last asbestos began. evidence coverage Since that
its adopt require reasonable minds
does conclusion, finding the court’s contrary disturbed, if the been even not have
would joined as a defendant. had been
insurer Co.,
See, Victory Notch v. Granite (1976). 238 N.W.2d
Minn. employee’s claim for an assess un attorneys against fees relators
ment inappropriate as that 176.191
der Minn.St. here, only where the applies, unlike
statute *2 Spannaus, Gen., Atty.
Warren Byron E. Starns, Gen., Deputy Chief Atty. and Ken- Raschke, Jr., Gen., neth E. Atty. Asst. St. Paul, appellant. for Briggs Morgan, & Keyes, Leonard J. Douglas Bond, L. Skor and Andrea M. St. Paul, respondents. Miller,
James D. Minneapolis, for Minne- sota Group, Public Interest Research amicus curiae.
PETERSON, Justice.
Defendant, Minnesota, appeals state of from the judgment trial court’s in favor of plaintiffs,1 holding (the L. Act), c. 268 to be unconstitutional.2 We affirm the trial generally may Phillips Company 1.Plaintiffs be divided into two 2. Petroleum categories packaging Universal, Inc., involved in the formerly 3. Hoover Hoo- —those milk; produc- and sale of those involved in the Bearing Company ver Ball and plastic goods tion and sale of and associated Packaging Systems, 4. M-H Inc. equipment. category 2. The trial court held The first includes: L. Creamery Company grounds: 1. Clover Leaf unconstitutional on three Foods, Marigold Inc. (1) deprives plaintiffs equal pro- The Act Dairy, 3. Wells Inc. tection of the law in contravention of U. S. Stores, 4. Weber & Barlow Inc. XIV; Const. Amend. The second includes: (2) deprives plaintiffs The Act of substantive Society Industry, of the Plastics process due of law in contravention U. S. Inc. turnable, rigid semi-rigid nonrefillable the Act and hold judgment court’s protection clause at least 50 of which is violates United Amendment Fourteenth plastic. Constitution, establishes States A of subdivision 1 “Subd. 2. violation rationally related which is not classification day each of viola- is misdemeanor and *3 legitimate to state interest. a a offense.4 separate tion is 26, 1977, pro- Act, May approved The 1, July This act effective “Sec. 3. is vides: 1977.” legislature finds that 1. The “Section specific aspects of this We note three nonreturnable, nonrefillable the use not, (1) Act un- unique The does statute: milk and packaging of containers for the circumstances, permit the use of any der presents a solid products milk other milk;8 plastic containers for nonrefillable7 state, pro- management problem for by (2) only commodity is the affected depletes natural motes waste and Act, are not banned plastic containers therefore, in resources. milk; (3) they filled with and unless are Min- policies stated in furtherance plastic nonrefillable milk containers only Statutes, 116F.01, deter- nesota Section by nonrefillable are affected nonreturnable, non- that the use of mines are not affected.9 milk containers packaging milk refillable containers products should be dis- and other milk the Act violates Plaintiffs contend the use of returnable couraged and that Four equal protection clause of the packaging prod- for these and reusable it creates a Amendment because teenth preferred and be encour- ucts is should paper containers are classification in which aged.3 preserved plastic nonrefillables while person 2. 1. No “See. Subdivision present to Because are be banned. or offer for sale at shall sell at retail regulation, statute involves economic any milk or fluid milk retail in this state is test is whether the classification relevant Statutes, product as in Minnesota defined a state in cream, rationally related to 32.391, other than sour Section Dukes, 427 a New Orleans v. U.S. yogurt, in terest. cottage cheese and Const, 1, by be banned the Act can re- art. tic milk bottle Amend. XIV and Minn. Const. 7; recycling, be used turned for but cannot § (3) again package bur- “nonrefilla- The Act constitutes an unreasonable milk. The term upon opinion throughout commerce in contravention den interstate bles” this is therefore used Const, I, U. art. 8. § S. which cannot be to describe milk containers again purpose. for the same used 1977, 268, 1, as Minn. St. 3. c. codified § Laws 116F.21. high density referred to container 2, 268, polyethylene plastic as Minn. St. § 4. Laws c. codified which cannot be dairy 116F.22. refilled with milk for returned to the be For the remainder sale to consumers. 96, superseded L. c. § 5. Laws opinion, to as containers will be referred these provided, part: “Notwith- “plastic nonrefillables.” contrary, prohibi- standing no law to offer for retail sale tion on the retail sale coated, 9. The container referred to nonreturnable, milk in nonrefillable paperboard cannot be returned container which prior July shall be effective with milk for sale to to the to be refilled 1978.” composed The container customers. density low legisla- coated with bleached kraft state that has Minnesota is polyethylene, to that used tively related nonrefillable milk contain- banned Canada, Ontario, den- containers. Low nonrefillable milk has banned both ers. by sity comprises polyethylene ex- about nonrefillable milk weight For remainder ecutive action. container. referred will be these containers “nonreturnable, 7. The Act mentions “paper to as containers.” A container can returnable ble containers.” plas- example, being For without refillable. (1976). 49 L.Ed.2d supports The record the trial court’s find- argue Plaintiffs that a rational classifica- ing nonrefillables present fewer because, tion is not established from an management solid waste problems pa- standpoint, paper per major containers. The method of solid superior nonrefillables, are not disposal deposit. landfill and a ban on nonrefillables will evidence at trial established that encourage serve to the use of contain- contain- serving ers instead of the use disposal. ers for landfill of refillable milk containers. expert Defendant’s agreed witnesses The Act is intended to further the principal posed environmental hazards 116F.01; policies stated in Minn.St. there disposal pollution landfill of under- fore, it promote is intended to the state water, ground which is leaching, caused *4 encouraging interests of recy reuse and and escape the creation and gas. of methane cling of reducing materials and the amount Both of these environmental hazards are type and entering material the solid by created decomposition. Bacterial 1977, 268, waste stream. Specifi L. c. 1.§ and reactions, other chemical combined cally, legislative finding stated percolation with of water and liquids, other Act is that nonrefillable milk containers seep create leachates which ground into the present management solid waste problems, ultimately and underground into water. promote waste, deplete natural The same reactions create gas, methane resources; legislative goal stated is that which is both explosive. noxious and Paper use of returnable milk containers should be milk containers contribute to these environ- encouraged. L. 1. The mental they hazards because begin to de- undoubtedly, deals with state in compose as soon as the coating on question terests. The crucial is whether the the exterior of the punctured container is separating paper classification torn. Plastic reasonably essentially nonrefillables is re lated to these inert and therefore state interests. do not contribute to the creation of leachates and methane gas.
We are aware of the deference that is accorded to when the Maintaining stability important landfill present type analyzed of statute is in landfill disposal First, for two reasons. protection grounds. Nevertheless, our in- stability cracking minimizes of the final quiry into the propriety constitutional landfill cracking cover. Such results in the present separating paper classification generation Second, of leachates. landfill containers from nonrefillables is de- stability encourages productive use of the pendent upon facts. upon Based the rele- landfill site after project the landfill is com- findings vant by court, of fact the trial pleted. decomposition Because waste cre- supported record, upon our own instability, ates landfill plastic nonrefilla- independent review of documentary bles contribute to stability landfill while sources, we believe the evidence conclusive- paper containers do not. ly demonstrates that the discrimination The trial court’s finding non- against plastic nonrefillables is not rational- refillables and containers occupy sub- ly objectives. related to the Act’s Consider- stantially the same amount of space landfill ing only specific areas of solid waste justified also the evidence. Plastic management, waste, depletion nonrefillables contain less raw material and resources, of natural it is clear that greater have density than effects of compaction (no If total spaces void left in not less harmful than the effects of containers) achieved, apparent It is also that the bles will occupy space. classification will not further less landfill goal Act’s encouraging stated the use evidence at trial during demonstrated that refillable milk containers. collection typically compacted waste is to a volume, Weyerhaeuser study it used in the original indicated its fraction of was plastic. MRI deposited when compacted further pressure incorporated Weyerhaeuser finding landfill, it has continual and that report its because no other upon layers other of waste are final written exerted conditions, there is documentation was available. Welch criti- deposited. these Under asserting by Weyerhaeuser cized the test conducted nonrefill- no basis for space neglected specify weights because it more landfill occupy ables containers used and because the test containers.10 laboratory, was conducted not under Data in a 1977 final report Midwest in a approximating conditions those found (MRI) and the United Research Institute landfill.12 William E. Ades of the EPA Agency Protection Environmental States testified that he too less confident of .was (EPA)11 argument supports defendant’s report compressibility figures in the MRI take more landfill figures categories than of in other of con- containers; however, ac- space than comparison. tainer Welch further testified figures curacy report in the MRI was insufficient evidence to there conclude expert by plaintiffs’ persuasively attacked type that either of container would con- significant was Highly the testi- witnesses. space sume more landfill than the other. Welch, investigator a chief mony Richard contrary conclusion of defendant’s solid report. the MRI Welch indi- involved in Samtur, expert, Harold was based in the first draft of the MRI cated that *5 upon a weak and inconclusive foundation13 assumed, upon conver- report it was based and, indicated, the lacked con- as trial court experts, plastic nonrefilla- sations with vincing quality. compress would paper bles and containers percent original disposal to of their vol- Solid waste is also achieved within 10 incineration, disposal a in which Paper ume. The American Institute then method of superior study plastic paper a the provided prepared MRI with currently Weyerhaeuser Corporation involving Although containers. not wide- prev- compressibility spread, of milk containers. The test incineration will become more upon provided at 10. Plaintiffs a relevant demonstration the container. The evidence trial indi- compaction during compacted of of the cross-examination of cated waste is to a fraction its expert, collection, original during defendant’s solid waste Counsel for Harold Samtur. compacted volume plaintiff samples of landfill, crushed both deposited even further when at a and with his bare hands. Samtur esti- the crushed volume of each contain- pressure upon has continual exerted it as other mated layers deposited. of waste are percent origi- er was between 10 and 20 of its acknowledged further nal volume. He there was upon for 13.Harold Samtur relied three sources plastic virtually springback no of One, report. (Samtur his conclusion: the MRI and re- nonrefillable after it had been crushed leased and that the figures accepted compressibility of the MRI springback which did occur derivation, report examining in without their by squeezing be the container could between thumb eliminated spite testimony of Welch’s about their inade- forefinger. and Two, quacy.) report prepared by a a milk Ministry packaging working group for of report, 11. The entitled “Resource and Environ- Analysis Ontario, in the Province of the Environment mental Profile of Five Milk Container Systems,” objective quantification (The of was an Canada. Ontario researchers estimated impacts compaction resource and environmental with five milk container per associated ratio a refillable systems, including pa- then assumed that the much container and nonrefillables, and lighter plastic consume the nonrefillable would ° documentary primary of evi- was source space. group also used a nonrefilla- same ble on the effects of dence trial incomparable milk container paper, containers and Minnesota, in because it container now used was report For the remainder will be referred to this heavier and was more almost report.” the “MRI Three, study, crush.) a 1969 difficult “Eggshell disposable Report,” on the character- test, 12. In this the volume of a container was (The study include did not istics containers. measured after the container was crushed with containers.) samples of milk totally laboratory a device and device was released, pressure exerted with no continual technology along alent as advances ener- impacts and the with lessened in other envi- gy generated by value of the heat it can be categories.16 ronmental economically utilized. Both nonre- conclusively The evidence demonstrates burn, fillables and but present fewer sol- higher a nonrefillables have much problems id waste containers. value, recovery Btu which results in Similarly, energy energy than can be recovered waste, the evidence establishes that Moreover, burning paper plas- containers are not completely tic nonrefillables incinerate fillables. figures While the not the MRI gases do emit noxious into the atmo- report energy consumption sphere, support while containers leave de- residue gases. position emit fendant’s small amounts noxious less re- quired produce paper containers, the ac- yet Recycling is another method of solid curacy figures successfully erod- disposal. express pur- waste One of the by plaintiffs. ed Computed in the MRI poses of c. Minn.St. 116F report were two values for the amount of recycling the reuse and of materials. Plas- energy consumed in production recyclable tic nonrefillables are because included, containers. The higher figure they can ground be and used to make figure excluded, while the lower large polyethylene products.14 number of (wood value the wood Paper bark and recyclable containers are not sawdust) paperboard generated coating and the can- manufac- separated. turing process. When MRI included the energy value derived from burning wood “Source reduction” is further aid in (resulting higher figure and a management similarly solid waste and is an higher level adverse environmental im- express goal of Minn.St. 116F. In the pact), paper containers slightly superi- were present case, major relevant source-re- toor nonrefillables. When MRI did constantly duction factor is the declining *6 energy not include the value derived from weight plastic of nonrefillables. Plastic burning waste (resulting wood in a lower weigh nonrefillables a fraction more than figure and a lower level of environmental weight paper half the of containers and impact), paper superior. containers were generate therefore less waste. While the However, figures MRI’s weight gallon plastic unit for paper of containers has fillables grams remained did not take at 115 or more for into consideration the at least past years, improvements resin, energy effect of the in value of the waste production gases produced machinery, making in design high density and container brought Welch, have polyethylene. about substantial investigator reduction in a chief weight plastic of in the MRI report, nonrefillables.15 Such meaning- testified that a weight reduction in a proportional comparison plastic causes ful between decrease in of the amount raw material bles and in of used and the generated, energy amount of waste consumption requires inclusion of plaintiff 60-gram evidence indicates that Clover average tured to mold bottles. The Creamery Company voluntary plas- Leaf weight has a throughout country, including used recycling program. tic milk Minnesota, Clover currently grams. is Hoover One picks up plastic Leaf milk containers that are presently 57-gram customer uses contain- stores, them, grinds returned to retail and sells ers. plastic salvage material to a dealer. argues 16.Defendant that some reduction will 1964, gallon plastic In nonrefillables made Act, occur under the because use of refillable blow-molding machines manufactured encouraged. milk will As dis- Universal, plaintiff weighed Hoover Inc. cussed this later in the evidence con- grams per By plastic unit. nonrefillables clusively demonstrates increased use of generally dairy industry weighed used in refillable milk containers will not be the result each, grams weight report. used in the MRI aof ban on Blow-molding currently machines are manufac- gas oil and natural computing the considered energy in wood resources, producing nonrenewable the evidence dem- energy in of consumed amount banning plastic testimony was onstrates that nonrefillables Welch’s paper containers. In consumption court.17 its will in lower the trial not result nat- properly credited nonrefillables amount of tests, used ural resources. The crude oil MRI weight average grams. gas producing plastic and natural used for weighing in Minnesota now used small that a plastic nonrefillables nonrefillables so ban on plastic nonrefilla- grams. 65-gram If alter is 65 nonrefillables will not the vol- energy value derived and the bles are used consumed non-fuel ume of resources for waste is included in burning wood likely have purposes. If container is consumption,figures for con- energy reducing potential depletion for of nat- pro- tainers, figures demonstrate resources, it is ural nonrefillable. requires duction of weight The record establishes that production con- less than continually being plastic nonrefillables tainers.18 reduced recyclable.19 at trial therefore
The evidence introduced production demonstrates conclusively establishes that The evidence require does not or goal the stated containers. The production promote a return to the use refillable that the amount of evidence also establishes containers, not will be furthered gas produc- oil and natural consumed banning plastic nonrefillables. In density for high polyethylene tion of Creamery Company plaintiff Clover Leaf banning and that negligible nonrefillables is revive refillable milk made an effort plastic nonrefillables will not increase in Minnesota and found that con- presently or oil mar- gas volume of natural purchase would not milk in refilla- sumers Thus, heating purposes. fuel keted bottles, ble even when the alternatives between non- drawing distinction in were some instances paper containers not rea- refillables and large to take back Clover Leaf forced interest sonably related the state’s quantities finally milk and sold several preventing energy waste. at a thousand unused refillable containers rejection of refillable containers loss. Furthermore, drawing a distinction be- though even cost retailers occurred nonrefillables and con- tween per gallon for was 4 less returnable reasonably cents related to the tainers for nonrefillable containers containers than conserving natural re- state’s interest *7 though of dollars were and even thousands spite the fact that timber is sources. In of promoting milk contain- spent in refillable be a renewable resource and considered to virtually pe- paper nonrefillables and containers is at trial indicated that The evidence has, industry years, used the same. troleum gases power processes. to fuel or various con- environmental factors are However, 19.When other pinpoint what it energy difficult sidered, plastic superiority petro-chemical pro- in used amount cessing report example, the MRI energy. plastics is analyzed evident. For represents more The. energy industry generally and com- in addition to down the factors does not break Using processes, pressibility. 70-gram plastic energy be- nonrefilla- used in these sources cause would extremely bles, production engage study be difficult to that demonstrated water; inquiry. (2) (1) paper in such an consumes waste; (3) generates con- more water-borne Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates materials; greater quantities of raw sumes (4) generates in each that if value raw material more industrial solid waste in container is excluded or included determin- However, plastic MRI re- nonrefillables. produce ing the amount of needed to port paper are envi- that indicated container, plastic envi- ronmentally superior of atmo- in paper ronmentally containers. spheric emissions. MRI, Welch, investigator for Richard a chief plastic energy impact of concluded that the ers. evidence also indicated that in immovably entrenched in Minnesota. The Ontario, plastic where both indicates, however, evidence that in the ear- administratively containers were ly 1970’s use of nonrefillables had banned in consumers have turned to a many been established in areas of Minneso- container, ta, third “plastic nonrefillable excluding the Twin metropolitan Cities pouch,” as an alternative to refillable con- area.
tainers. Whereas 47
of the milk
The state
interest asserted
defendant
containers used in
in
Ontario
1971 were
is,
record,
on this
speculative and illusory.
refillable,
percentage
in
was 19.7.
gravamen
argument
of defendant’s
The evidence demonstrates that conve-
by presently
banning plastic nonrefilla-
important
nience is an
factor for consumers bles,
will,
future,
and that consumers will
therefore use
promote
better able to
environmentally
containers instead of
refillables if
sound milk packaging, such as refillable
nonrefillables are banned. The environ-
However,
the evidence at trial
producing,
mental effects
using,
and dis-
indicates that the Minnesota Pollution Con-
posing
containers are not less
Agency
trol
presently plan
does not
to take
harmful than the environmental effects as-
propose
subject
further action on the
sociated with
Similarly,
milk containers.
action
Legislature
uncertain,
Minnesota
if not
argues
Defendant
that even if it is as-
highly doubtful.
original
version of
sumed that
containers are not envi-
provision
Act included a
banning paper
ronmentally superior
containers,
provision
but that
was eventual-
bles, the classification drawn in the Act is
ly removed from the Act. There is no
rationally
related to another
evidence, therefore,
state
prohibiting
the use of
interest —
will cease to be used in the Minnesota milk
significant
nonrefillables before a
foothold
market. Because
acquired
containers are not
in the Minnesota milk market.
environmentally superior
argues
Defendant
that the Act was initia-
fillables, any asserted environmental bene-
ted in response to a move in late
preventing
fit
in
nonrefillables from
major
long
Minnesota dairies to a
term
being widely used in Minnesota is illusory.
packaging
commitment to
milk in
nonrefillables. Defendant reasons that the
Defendant nevertheless
contends
undoubted consumer
convenience of
upheld
that the Act
step
should be
as a first
nonrefillables combined
capital
with the
in-
solving
toward
problem
overall
of milk
vestment machinery designed
produce
container waste. We do not doubt that
plastic nonrefillables and the
legislatures may
economic
implement
pro
economic
gains to
by maximizing production
be made
grams step by step, adopting regulations
effectively
would have
any
eliminated
like-
only partially
perceived
ameliorate a
lihood
the Minnesota
industry
evil
deferring complete
elimination of
would
voluntarily
later
turn to refillable
regulations. See,
the evil to future
g.,
e.
containers. Defendant
argues
also
be- Katzenbach Morgan,
384 U.S.
cause nationwide trends
indicate
(1966);
87
judi-
The court articulated the role of the
the
the
violates
hold that
Act
We
legislative
to
ciary
respect
with
economic
Amend-
of the Fourteenth
clause
protection
regulations as follows:
be-
States Constitution
to the United
ment
are accorded wide latitude in
“States
which is
a classification
it
cause
establishes
regulation of
the
their local economies
legitimate state
related to a
rationally
not
powers,
police
under their
rational
interest.20
may be made with substan
distinctions
Affirmed.
tially less than mathematical exactitude.
Legislatures may implement
pro
their
(dissenting).
WAHL, Justice
step,
gram step by
Katzenbach v. Mor
1717, 16
gan, 384 U.S.
86 S.Ct.
persuaded by the evidence
While I am
(1966),
L.Ed.2d 828
in such economic ar
by
majority which indicates
cited
the
eas, adopting regulations
only par
worse, from an
are no
plastic nonrefillables
perceived
a
tially ameliorate
evil and de
standpoint,
than
non-
ferring
to
complete elimination
the evil
refillables,
agree
that the
I cannot
See, g.,
regulations.
e. Williamson
future
ban,
today, is
struck down
Co.,
488-489,
Optical
v. Lee
348 U.S.
legitimate state
to a
“rationally
related
461, 464-65,
(1955).
L.Ed.
75
99
563
S.Ct.
constitutionally
a
interest.”
I view as
short,
a
judiciary may
the
not sit as
In
pro-environ-
step” in a
permissible “first
the
superlegislature
judge
wisdom
legislature.
the
part
mental effort on
legislative policy
desirability of
determi
Dukes, 427
New
v.
The Court in
Orleans
nations made in areas that neither affect
297, 303,
49
511
L.Ed.2d
U.S.
S.Ct.
rights
proceed along
fundamental
nor
curiam,
(1976),upheld, per
the constitution-
lines, see,
Day-Brite Light
e.
suspect
g.,
prohibit-
ordinance
ality of a New Orleans
Missouri,
421, 423, 72
ing, Inc. v.
342 U.S.
pushcarts,
ing the sale of foodstuffs
405, 407,
(1952);
88 in the the relevant the indus- near future in economic to force der future efforts Here, however, environmentally accepta- being regulated. it is try to area utilize legislative from the at least fair to conclude ble containers. history legislature that the Minnesota in- ac- majority concludes that “further ** banning plastic that the bill deed intended subject of milk containers tion on step” a “first nonrefillables would be in the uncertain, Legislature is by Minnesota Supreme environmental effort. U.S. doubtful,” citing as evidence highly if not here; well taken it is Court’s cautions are bill an earlier version of the the fact that judge the not for this court “to wisdom or provision banning paper had contained desirability legislative determinations” in well, provision was as which regulation. this area of economic However, is at least eventually removed. pre- evidence arguable that such leads in its majority discussion cisely opposite conclusion—the same experience with a ban on all Ontario might be drawn from conclusion which containers, suggests nonrefillable milk made senators following statements actually such a was detrimental to total ban bill, tran- on the nonrefillables debates efforts, pointing to environmental evidence entered trial record scribed and of refillables has market share Exhibit J: dropped since the ban was enacted. Trial ‘ * * * Spear: true however, It is established, “Senator evidence alternative now is not a returna- that our plastic pouch clearly superior an in terms of milk bottles. system ble standpoint to both plastic environmental eventually going to be Hopefully Thus, we are while the system, kind of able move to that but perhaps precisely measure not have did going we to move to a returna- intended, are never salutary it nevertheless had effect long so as we allow another system ble impact. suggest To system with all the invest- nonreturnable such a total ban would not benefit ment all of the vested interest that contrary environment is not to the ” begin.’ going evidence; to involve Full Senate attempts it undermines Discussion, Legislature, May 70th Floor part proceed legislature (cid:127)the with 20, 1977. evil,” “complete elimination of the an effort * * of which real was but Luther: “Senator first step. direction that we should headed in the packaging, in terms of state of Minnesota 268, Chapter Because here I believe * * * system. a returnable There unconstitutional, precisely declared arguments today made here about will be type of which the regulation Supreme U.S. compara- paperboard how the container is Dukes, v. Court in New Orleans sanctioned throwaway plastic. ble That is not to the I from this respectfully dissent court’s hold us. the issue that is before The issue ing protec that this measure denies go whether we into before us is should Chapter tion. Having found that 268 with throwaway plastic system that another equal protection challenge, stands I very, very difficult to convert will be it is not in would further hold that violation ” Discussion, Floor Full from.’ Senate clause, Raymond commerce Motor 20,May Legislature, 70th Rice, 429, Transportation, Inc. v. 434 U.S. 98 L.Ed.2d Supreme frequently Court has The U.S. clause, step-by-step (1978), process Exxon approach observed that a the due see, regulation permissible, g., Corp. Maryland, e. v. economic Governor U.S. Dukes, 117,124-125, supra; New Orleans v. Katzenbaeh 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Distillers, (1978); Morgan, 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. Federal Inc. v. therein, State, (1966), 144, 154 and cases cited 229 N.W.2d L.Ed.2d 828 Minn. (1975), required never actual evidence that is a constitutional exercise of has but step legislative to take a powers. intends further