Sorting Fact from Fiction
Insights from the Federal Trade Commission's Workshop on Recyclable Product Claims
While 94% of Americans support recycling, only 35% actually do it. Can changes to product labels help shrink this gap through consumer education?
One month after the public comment period closed for the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides, the agency hosted a public meeting to crack open the debate on “recyclable” and “recycled” product claims—which I learned to mean two very different things in the industry after watching the proceedings (recording available).
In today’s economy, chasing arrows symbols (i.e., the recycling logo) and words like “recyclable” and “made with recycled materials” are as common and complacent as barcodes on product packaging. Being so, this session deftly named “Talking Trash at the FTC” piloted the Green Guides essential update. The workshop dissected whether terminology used by the waste management industry regarding end-of-life product processing (and re-processing) reflects what is expected by the “reasonable consumer.”
Case in Point: Did you know recycled glass actually ends up in a landfill?
To spare those of you who don’t willingly choose to watch four-hour recordings of federal public comment meetings in your free time, I have summarized what I found to be key considerations and divergence points for why labeling for recyclability is (or is not) sufficient and needed. If after reading this article you are interested in offering your perspective on the issues discussed at the workshop, you can submit your written commentary through June 13, 2023 to the Federal Registry.
Resin Identification Codes
Resin identification codes, or RICs, are the numbers that appear, often inside a chasing arrows symbol, on the bottom of any rigid plastic product. These numbers correlate with 1 of 7 categories or “types” of plastics, with #7 being the catch-all for “other” plastics. For instance, plastic bottles with a 1 on them indicate they are made with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Plastics with a number 2 are considered high-density polyethylene (HDPE), etc. The conversation on RICs at the Trash Talk challenged whether consumers actually understand what these codes mean, and whether the chasing arrow border around the plastic number creates a consumer perception that all plastics with this symbol (i.e., all plastics) are recyclable.
In defense, recycling advocates acknowledged the original intent of RICs, which was for use by material recovery facilities (MRFs). At these facilities, hand sorters rely on these codes to reallocate items improperly classified by sorting systems. Therefore, having a RIC on a plastic product is critically important, regardless of how consumers interpret them. As for changes to current standards, procyclers proposed that qualms on format or use case should not be questioned on a national forum, since RICs are regulated at the state-level.
Recycling skeptics rebutted that although states can set their own stricter RIC standards, these labels are ultimately a matter of federal guidance to mitigate consumer misunderstanding. For example, regulations requiring the chasing arrows border around RIC codes to be replaced with a regular triangle or completely different shape could greatly decrease the volume of contaminated plastic loads sent to landfill. Because the chasing arrow symbol is a universalized icon indicating to consumers that a product can actually be recycled, associating it with plastics is a recipe for deception, especially since many “recyclable” plastics do not have viable end markets.
Recycling in Court: 7-Eleven recently faced a lawsuit on the RIC issue, when a Chicago resident claimed the convenience store’s polystyrene cups, plates, and other foodware products, which included a chasing arrows symbol but no RIC code, created consumer deception as to where these products would end up at the end of their life (i.e., actually recycled or in a landfill).
Main consideration for the Federal Trade Commission: Should the regulation and design of RIC codes be established at the national level? If so, should the chasing arrow border be replaced with a different shape?
End Markets
If I could CTRL+F the entire workshop’s transcript, I would speculate the most commonly-used phrase over the four hour session to be “end markets.” For both pro- and anti-recycling parties, the need to consider recycled material markets during product labeling was a prominent topic of discussion.
Recycling antagonists forwarded the idea that labeling for recyclability must proceed with end markets in mind, and labels should make it easier for consumers to decide which items are truly recyclable. “True recycling,” in their definition, is the probability that a material will actually be sorted at a MRF and remanufactured into a useful product.
For example, no markets currently exist for plastics with RIC codes 3, 4, 6, and 7, meaning that even when they are sent to a recycling center, they will almost certainly be rerouted to the landfill. Markets for their profitable resale have diminished as a result of low durability and likelihood of contamination, despite the fact that the materials themselves may be technically recyclable.
Procyclers countered that companies could recycle 50% more if households put more of their plastics in the right bin. The main hurdle preventing plastic recyclers from churning out more recycled material, they say, is that they do not have enough volume to build markets around reselling. Further complicating the matter is the localization and “parochial” nature of waste infrastructure, which makes it legitimately impossible to accurately label recyclability for each municipality based on whether a market for used materials exists in that area.
Main consideration for the Federal Trade Commission: Should the probability that a material with make it through a MRF to a viable end market affect product labeling to protect the consumer? If so, what defines a “viable end market?”
Glass & Chemical Pyrolysis
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines recycling as “the process of collecting and processing materials (that would otherwise be thrown away as trash) and remanufacturing them into new products,” but the goal of the Green Guides is to define between the lines. When a reasonable consumer sees the word or symbol for recycling on a package, does that lead them to make conclusions about how it is produced, processed, or handled that are not true to taste?
According to the workshop discussions, “remanufacturing” is the term to discern for the sake of decreasing consumer confusion. For example, glass is a material that most Americans believe to be recyclable. Turns out, when placed in multi-stream recycling bins where glass can be compacted and shattered, these glass shards are “recycled” as landfill cover to hold rubbish in place.
Is this a valid use of the term recyclable? Should consumers be made aware of this process through glass product labeling?
In a similar vein, chemical pyrolysis, the process of turning plastic waste into oil for fuel, is considered by some to be recycling. Would a reasonable consumer expect their recycling behavior to result in the proliferation of fossil fuels? Should chemical pyrolysis be considered a form of “recyclability,” warranting a chasing arrows symbol on plastic products and packaging?
Main consideration for the Federal Trade Commission: Does recycling imply to the consumer that a material will be repurposed or remanufactured into a product of similar quality, value, or environmental impact? If so, are alternative recycling processes such as plastic pyrolysis included in that definition?
The Future of “Recyclability”
Off all the groups represented at the Trash Talk, the majority expressed their desire for waste reduction to be a profitable and sustainable endeavor. Their views are reflective of the American populace, of which over 80% believe U.S. recycling infrastructure needs improvement.
More importantly, stakeholders agreed that labeling requirements need to be practical and easily interpretable so as not to burden consumers with research projects every time they want to disposal of a product. Striking this balance of transparency, accuracy, and simplicity presents a challenge in need of regulatory guidance.
This current opportunity for public engagement presents a platform to express discontent and ideate potential solutions to one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time. If you would like your voice to be heard, don’t forget to submit any written comments related to the issues discussed at the workshop by June 13, 2023.
P.S. As a sustainability buff, I know that this space is somewhat siloed and constantly evolving. Being said, I welcome your fact-checking and feedback! Working together to improve our collective understanding of sustainability is the goal of my page!
P.P.S. The views in this article are my personal perspectives and do not necessarily reflect the view of my employer or any other person or entity.
Connect with me on LinkedIn & subscribe to my Substack.