U.S. RoHS: To be or not to be? That is the question. A federal law that mirrors the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive is a controversial subject -- perfect for inviting reactions -- and therefore a perfect topic for this first blog entry.

If you've kept current with the trades over the last year, you may have seen that Newark InOne has come out in support of a RoHS-like law for the United States. Environmental issues aside, I share the belief that one standard law is the most pragmatic and cost-effective solution for the U.S. electronics industry. And it is a long overdue discussion for Congress to have, given that several states have already taken the lead.

"California RoHS," which took effect January 1, prohibits the sale of eight types of electronic devices if they contain more than the specified concentrations of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium allowed under the EU's directive. State rules aimed at restricting mercury have also been enacted in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

In the absence of a federal law, the electronics industry risks trying to comply with a patchwork of state green laws, resulting in unimaginable costs and complexity throughout the supply chain.

In September 2006, Newark InOne launched an informal three month poll on our RoHS Web site asking this question. "Do you think the U.S. Congress should enact RoHS laws at the federal level, thereby creating a single compliance standard for all 50 states?"1028 respondents clicked "yes,"478 clicked "no," and 78 were "unsure."

What do you think?

This blog post was contributed by Jeff Shafer, senior VP of product at Newark InOne. At Newark InOne, Jeff leads product management, product data, pricing and customer segment strategy, and was instrumental in developing and implementing RoHS compliance initiatives for the company, customers and suppliers.