Chasing Arrows | Recyclability | Truth in Labeling ·
Back to Blog
When consumers see a recyclable label, they should be confident that when they put that material in their bin, it will be turned into something new. Unfortunately, greenwashing and deceptive labeling are making it harder for consumers to recycle with confidence.
In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its intention to update the Green Guides (Guides), which are guidelines intended to help marketers avoid making environmental claims that mislead consumers. First issued in 1992 and last updated in 2012, the Guides are intended to curb greenwashing by defining when and how companies can make certain sustainability claims, like “recyclable” or “compostable.” While the federal government only pursues a few greenwashing cases a year, the Guides have served as guidance for state policymakers when drafting laws, including post-consumer recycled content requirements, truth-in-labeling laws, and, most recently, extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging programs.
Since the last update of the Guides more than a decade ago, consumer awareness of climate issues has increased, and marketing strategies to appeal to those consumer concerns have evolved. As recyclers, we see the impact of deceptive labeling every day in our facilities as an ever-increasing amount of non-recyclable material enters the stream. Last year, AMBR submitted comments to the FTC on the Guides in the hopes that we would see swift action from the FTC as EPR for packaging programs are increasingly introduced at the state level, and strong federal guidance could help inform this work to implement impactful and truly effective policy design.
Industry’s Push to Weaken the Definition of “Recyclable”
Unfortunately, while AMBR and many of our allies are pushing for stronger definitions of recycling, the plastics industry is pushing to weaken the definition. Earlier this month, ProPublica looked at the plastics industry’s push to expand the definition of “recyclable” in the Green Guides. As the article outlines, the industry argues that “recyclable” should mean “capable of being recycled” rather than recyclable within our existing recycling system. Under this expanded definition, there would be no requirement to ensure that residents have access to recycling services for that material, that material can be sorted, and that the material can be turned into something new in ways that minimize environmental and human health impacts.
Most plastic is not designed for recyclability. Single-use plastic, in particular, is hard to collect and sort and has limited end markets. The recycling industry’s push for an expanded definition of recycling is directly tied to their efforts to include “chemical recycling” under the “recycling” label. However, as the ProPublica article highlights, chemical recycling technologies like pyrolysis are found to be “inefficient, dirty, and so limited in capacity that no one expects it to process meaningful amounts of plastic waste any time soon.”
Yet, industry continues to argue that the only factor in determining recyclability should be whether a material can feasibly be recycled. As mission-based recyclers working towards a low-impact, zero-waste materials economy, we disagree.
Establishing Strong Standards for “Recyclable” Claims
As recyclers, we know there are limitations to what we can recycle, especially when it comes to plastic packaging. For something to be practically and technically recyclable, we need to be able to collect enough of it, sort it safely and efficiently, and have robust demand for it as a feedstock in the supply chain to make new products. Most plastic is not designed to be recyclable – it is difficult to sort and lacks responsible and dependable end markets. This results in continued reliance on virgin plastic.
Even if we can recycle certain packaging, we need to think critically about whether we should. These considerations go beyond the economic, practical, or technological and, importantly, consider toxics, environmental justice, labor protection, and just transition, and whether recycling replaces virgin fossil fuel or problematic biomass extraction. All of this should then be considered in relation to the immediate and long-term alternatives.
Additionally, materials considered recyclable must also be sent to a responsible end market that results in a significant yield. “Responsible end market” means a materials market in which the recycling of materials or the disposal of contaminants is conducted in a way that benefits the environment and minimizes risks to public health, and worker health and safety.
With a strong definition of recycling as a guidepost, there are few formats of single-use plastic packaging that are actually candidates for recycling in residential recycling systems in the United States that are collected and sorted in a materials recovery facility. They include PET #1 bottles, PET #1 thermoform, HDPE #2 bottles (natural and color), and possibly #5 polypropylene containers (depending on the region). For these types of packaging, the chasing arrows symbol should only be used if the product and packaging can be recycled via curbside recycling programs within the region, with 60% of residents having access to programs that accept them.
Other types of plastics should not be labeled as recyclable or display any symbol similar to the chasing arrows symbol. The FTC should take steps to support policies and regulations that ban or promote reduction strategies for these non-recyclable plastics.
The following plastics are highly toxic, unnecessary and/or cause problems for other recyclables, and should not be allowed to make recyclability claims:
- Carry-home and produce plastic film and non-woven plastic bags
- PVC (#3) single-use packaging
- Polystyrene (#6) single-use packaging (expanded and not)
- Mixed material flex pouches
- #7 plastics
The US Plastics Pact, which brings together producers, NGOs, government agencies and research institutes, developed a list of problematic and unnecessary plastics that must be eliminated in order to create a more stable and circular economy in the United States. Many of the plastics listed above are on this list.
Emergent Policies Will Only be as Strong as Recycling Definition
As more states work to pass and implement EPR for packaging programs, defining recyclable will be at the forefront of the debate. Strong guidance from the federal government could have a significant impact on ensuring these programs have teeth. For instance, Minnesota and California’s laws require that all covered material be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2032. If these programs are to actually reduce waste, we need these words to mean something.
The FTC has a critical role in protecting the public from misleading, deceptive, and false marketing claims regarding the recyclability of products and packaging. As a uniform national resource, the Green Guides play a vital role in curbing misinformation from companies across the country. We strongly urge the FTC to release updated Green Guides that reject efforts to weaken what it means to be recyclable but rather recognize the important role recycling plays in driving us towards a zero-waste future.