How the PACK Act Would Weaken Recycling

At first glance, the federal Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act might sound like progress as proponents of the bill claim that it creates clearer, more consistent rules for environmental claims on packaging.

It doesn’t. The PACK Act would weaken existing protections against misleading “recyclable” claims, lowering the bar so that companies can call packaging “recyclable” even when it isn’t accepted by real-world recycling systems.

By processing thousands of tons of recycling each year, AMBR’s member organizations have, for decades, borne the operational costs and challenges arising from misleading labeling and upstream design decisions that do not match downstream reality. We call a packaging material “recyclable” when it can realistically be collected, processed, and sold as recovered material at scale — not for whatever symbol on the package claims. It’s from that vantage point as mission-driven recycling operators that we urge Congress to reject the PACK Act.

What the FTC Green Guides Already Require

Right now, recyclability claims are governed at the federal level by the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are designed to prevent deceptive environmental marketing.

Under the Green Guides:

• An unqualified “recyclable” claim is only appropriate if recycling facilities are available to a “substantial majority” of communities, which the FTC interprets as about 60%.
• If access is below that threshold, companies must use clear, prominent qualifications (for example, “Recyclable only in limited communities”).
• A claim can be deceptive if a product’s design, components, or downstream realities significantly limit its ability to be recycled.
• The focus is on consumer understanding — whether a reasonable person would be misled about what happens to the material.

This standard isn’t perfect. It measures access rather than actual recycling outcomes. But it does create an important guardrail: you can’t broadly call something recyclable if most people can’t actually recycle it.

States Are Filling the Gap 

While federal guidance remains limited, a growing number of states are advancing stronger policies through Truth in Labeling laws and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging and paper products.

Under these state EPR programs, recyclability is being defined through comprehensive, statewide lists grounded in local infrastructure realities: what facilities actually accept, what markets exist for recovered materials, and what designs make sorting and end-market use feasible.

This is a fundamentally different approach from a marketing claim. It ties packaging to system capacity and outcomes, not just whether it meets a technical specification.

These state-level recyclability lists should reflect extensive engagement with recycling professionals, local governments, facilities, and communities — and they should reflect what actually works on the ground.

How the PACK Act Changes the Equation

The PACK Act rewrites the standard for recyclability to benefit packaging producers — at the expense of recycling systems, the public, and the environment.

1. Shifts the Standard Away from Real-World Recycling

Under the Green Guides, recyclability is tied to access and operational reality. The PACK Act shifts the focus to procedural compliance — whether the company follows an approved verification framework — regardless of what actually happens to a packaging material.

This means that a packaging type could meet technical standards and still:

• Be rejected by most material recovery facilities (MRFs)
• Contaminate recycling streams
• Lack a stable, responsible end market
• Fail to be recycled at meaningful scale

The PACK Act opens the door for claims that are technically defensible on paper but operationally false.

2. Weakens the 60% “Substantial Majority” Standard

The Green Guides’ “substantial majority” benchmark is one of the few concrete limits on recyclability claims. The PACK Act does not preserve this threshold and allows recyclability to be defined without tying claims to community-level access. Without an access-based standard, packaging could qualify as recyclable nationally even when acceptance is inconsistent or recovery is minimal.

3. Allows Industry to Define Outcomes

The Green Guides are rooted in consumer protection law and state EPR recyclability lists are rooted in system reality. 

The PACK Act calls for standards that are “consensus-based,” “science-based,” and “harmonized” — but consensus among whom? When standard-setting is dominated by packaging producers whose financial interests lie in defining “recyclable” as broadly as possible, the result is predictable. A standard shaped primarily by those who design and sell packaging should not override the expertise of those who operate recycling systems.

4. Rolls Back State Laws

Today, states can go beyond the FTC Green Guides — and many are, through Truth in Labeling and EPR for packaging laws. The PACK Act is explicitly aimed at eliminating a state’s ability to set stronger standards. That should raise alarm bells.

A federal standard should set a minimum, not block states from adopting stronger protections. If the PACK Act preempts tougher state rules, it could freeze recyclability definitions at the lowest common denominator — undermining states that are trying to align packaging claims with real recycling outcomes and statewide systems — many of which are unique to their region.

5. Ignores Real Recycling Outcomes Entirely

The PACK Act regulates claims, not results. 

It does not require evidence that materials are in truth successfully sorted, turned into new products, and/or support stable, responsible, end markets.

If a material isn’t being recycled at scale, calling it “recyclable” — even under a federal standard — still misleads the public and damages trust in the recycling system.

Why This Matters

Recycling systems depend on accurate information and compatible materials. When packaging is labeled “recyclable” but cannot, in actuality, be effectively processed, communities pay the price through contamination, higher system costs, and increased disposal.

At its core, recycling is about conserving natural resources — keeping valuable materials in use and reducing the need to extract new ones. When packaging is labeled recyclable but is not actually recovered and remanufactured, that becomes a false promise. Materials are still discarded, and extraction continues.

Policies that focus only on how claims are defined, rather than whether materials are truly recycled at scale, do not move us closer to a system that preserves natural resources. “Recyclable” on a label doesn’t necessarily mean recyclable in practice — and communities deserve regulation built on truth, not marketing. A “recyclable” label that doesn’t reflect reality isn’t a standard — it’s a smokescreen. The PACK Act enshrines those false claims as federal law.