Recycling Policy ·
Back to Blog
The Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 has been framed as a technical update to how recycled content is measured. In reality, it is part of a broader pattern of federal proposals — alongside the PACK Act — that threaten to undermine real recycling systems, weaken state leadership, and mislead consumers about what “recycling” actually means.
While these two bills take different approaches, they are moving in the same direction.
- The PACK Act weakens rules around what can be labeled “recyclable,” making it easier for companies to market products as recyclable even when they are not meaningfully collected or processed in the real world.
- The Recycling Materials Attribution Act weakens rules around recycled content, making it easier for companies to claim they are using recycled materials — even when they are not.
Together, they represent a coordinated effort to rewrite the rules of recycling in ways that benefit industry, not the public. Just as concerning, both bills could undermine the effectiveness of state Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging programs by overriding stronger state standards and creating federal loopholes that weaken accountability and real-world outcomes.
If the PACK Act is about lowering the bar for what can be labeled recyclable, the Recycling Materials Attribution Act is about loosening the rules for what counts as recycled content. This post focuses on the latter—and why it poses a serious risk to real recycling systems.
Recycled Content Should Mean Something Real
Recycled content claims should be grounded in physical reality. When a product is labeled as recycled or having recycled content, that claim should reflect the actual presence of recovered material in the final product — material that has been collected, processed, and remanufactured into something new. Measurement systems should be transparent, verifiable, and tied to real material flows, not accounting constructs. This clarity is essential for consumer trust, fair markets, and meaningful environmental outcomes.
Unfortunately, the Recycled Materials Attribution Act seeks to reshape how recycled content is defined in ways that benefit the plastics industry and further enables its unchecked plastic production.
How the Attribution Act Undermines Real Recycling
1. It Preempts Stronger State and EPR Protections
The bill would block states from adopting or enforcing stronger standards for minimum recycled content requirements. This directly threatens state Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, which rely on clear, enforceable definitions of recycling and recycled content to drive real material recovery and hold producers accountable. Instead of allowing states to lead, the legislation locks in weaker federal rules nationwide.
2. It Redefines Recycling to Include Chemical Recycling and Plastic-to-Fuel Technologies
The bill gives highly polluting forms of chemical recycling a regulatory advantage over mechanical recycling — the proven system that actually collects, processes, and remanufactures materials into new products. By validating accounting-based approaches tied to these pathways, the legislation risks diverting investment away from infrastructure that genuinely reduces waste.
Even more concerning, the bill creates pathways for plastic converted into fuel to count as recycled content. Burning plastic as fuel does not keep materials in circulation — it destroys them. Allowing these processes to qualify as “recycling” fundamentally undermines the concept of a circular economy and weakens public trust in environmental claims. This is especially problematic for state EPR for packaging programs, which are designed to increase real recycling — not subsidize disposal disguised as recovery.
3. It Lets Virgin Plastic Be Sold as “Recycled”
By allowing mass-balance accounting, the bill enables companies to claim recycled content without tying those claims to actual materials in a specific product. In practice, this means a product could be marketed as “recycled” even if it contains only virgin plastic.
4. It Makes Meeting PCR Requirements Easier Without Real Recycling
The legislation validates accounting methods that allow companies to meet post-consumer recycled content (PCR) targets on paper — without increasing the actual use of recovered materials. This undermines the effectiveness of programs designed to drive real material recovery.
5. It Encourages Self-Certified Accounting Systems
Companies could rely on novel, privately developed accounting methods and third-party certifications that lack consistency and transparency. This opens the door to unverifiable claims and reduced accountability.
6. It Weakens Protections Against Misleading Claims
By redefining what counts as deceptive, the bill makes it harder to challenge misleading recycled content claims — tilting the playing field toward corporate marketing.
7. It Pressures the FTC to Weaken the Green Guides
The bill would require updates to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) guidance in ways that accommodate weaker accounting methods, potentially allowing claims that do not reflect real-world recycling.
A Broader Pattern: Redefining Recycling to Avoid Real Change
Taken together, the PACK Act and the Recycling Materials Attribution Act signal a troubling shift:
- Instead of reducing waste, they create more systems to support our throw-away system.
- Instead of improving recycling systems, they redefine terms.
- Instead of increasing real recycling, they expand what counts as recycling.
- Instead of supporting state innovation, they override it.
This is especially concerning at a time when states are leading the way on EPR policies designed to reduce waste, increase recycling, and hold producers accountable.
If federal policy weakens definitions of “recyclable” and “recycled content,” it risks undermining the very foundation these programs depend on.
Strong recycling systems depend on transparency and material integrity. When products are labeled as recycled, they should actually contain recovered materials that have been collected and remanufactured into new products. Policies and investments should support recycling systems that reduce waste, conserve resources, and reduce reliance on virgin materials.
The Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 and the Pack Act move us in the opposite direction — away from measurable environmental outcomes and toward misleading labeling and false accounting frameworks.
For these reasons, AMBR opposes the legislation and urges Members of Congress to pursue standards that uphold truth in labeling, support proven recycling systems, and protect the public from deceptive environmental claims.