Causes.com
| 5.31.23
Biden Admin Seeks to Change Misleading Recycling Logo
Do you think the recycling logo is misleading?
What's the story?
- The familiar recycling logo, with its triangular chasing arrows, has been a universal symbol for five decades. However, the Biden administration is now deciding whether or not it is misleading and should be phased out.
- Designed by a college student for the first annual Earth Day in 1970, it graces packaging worldwide, nudging consumers to recycle rather than discard a given item.
Misleading logo?
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Biden administration now think the logo is misleading, stoking "consumer confusion about what is recyclable and/or compostable" as recycling centers do not routinely accept many packages that feature the logo.
- A 2019 report from the Consumer Brands Association found that 68% of Americans mistakenly assume that any product with the recycling symbol is recyclable. The report found that 24% didn't know the symbols' meaning at all.
- In EPA comments lodged with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency has called for the logo to be removed from an entire class of plastics.
- Plastics are categorized by "resin numbers", which provides more details about the plastic and how easily recycled they are. Resin one and two plastics, such as bottles and jugs, are the most easily recycled products and are not the target of the EPA complaint.
- The EPA takes issue with the recycling logo being placed next to resin categories three to seven which include plastic bags and Styrofoam. These are typically sent to landfills or burned, releasing toxic chemicals into the air.
- The EPA argues that placing the chasing arrows symbol upon resin three to seven plastics "does not accurately represent recyclability as many plastics (especially 3-7) do not have end markets, and are not financially viable to recycle."
- Environmental groups are also pointing to the logo as a sign of "greenwashing." A 2020 report by Greenpeace found that corporations like Nestlé, Walmart, and Unilever use misleading recyclable labels.
The big picture
- American households produce roughly 51 million tons of plastic waste a year, and only 5% is recycled. Greenpeace research shows that only 4% of plastic bags and 7% of plastic cups are accepted for recycling in the U.S.
- The recycling rates of the easiest-to-recycle plastics, PET and HDPE bottles, are 29.1% and 29.3%, respectively.
- The world currently produces 430 million tons of plastics a year, two-thirds of which are single-use or short-lived plastics.
What are people saying?
"Instead of getting serious about moving away from single-use plastic, corporations are hiding behind the pretense that their throwaway packaging is recyclable. We know now that this is untrue. The jig is up."
"Companies must move beyond the outdated, failed approach of promoting recycling as the solution to excessive plastic waste and pollution."
What's next?
- California passed a law in 2021 to restrict the use of the logo.
- A 2022 paper published in Environmental Science & Policy suggested a new method of labeling:
"In our paper, we've made recommendations to labeling which move [the] focus from recyclability to sustainability, are specific to the region of purchase, and inform the public about plastic additive content."
- The United Nations warned in a recent report that single-use plastics need to be eliminated entirely, part of a series of reforms that could reduce global plastic pollution by 80% by 2040.
Do you think the recycling logo is misleading?
—Emma Kansiz
The Latest
-
The Long Arc: Taking Action in Times of Change“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” Martin Luther King Jr. Today in read more... Advocacy -
Thousands Displaced as Climate Change Fuels Wildfire Catastrophe in Los AngelesIt's been a week of unprecedented destruction in Los Angeles. So far the Palisades, Eaton and other fires have burned 35,000 read more... Environment -
Puberty, Privacy, and PolicyOn December 11, the Montana Supreme Court temporarily blocked SB99 , a law that sought to ban gender-affirming care for read more... Families -
Women Are Shaping This Election — Why Is the Media Missing It?As we reflect on the media coverage of this election season, it’s clear that mainstream outlets have zeroed in on the usual read more... Elections
Climate & Consumption
Health & Hunger
Politics & Policy
Safety & Security
Symbols aren't nearly as important as everyone having access to high throughput recycling no matter where they live.
Only 35% is recycled in the US. While that is a 5X increase since 1960 when it was 7% there is still a lot more to go.
Our state is slightly above the national average at 39% while our county is at 60% and our building is one of the top contributors though we don't know the stats on that.
There are 2,000 recycling facilities nationwide but 3,134 counties so not every county has a recycling center.
https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/the-state-of-recycling-today/
Fix it turd followers. Yep all 3 of my dumbass Reps., cornyn, crenshaw and cruz! 🖕!
Do you think the recycling logo is misleading?
YES!
It is long past time to clear up the mess that the current logo has created.
Personally, I prefer to see text, but a graphic is fine. We will need to repeatedly see the new graphic with texts, then, likely, after a few years, we'll know the meaning of each graphic.
We need a better recycling system.
It may be most helpful to support businesses that recycle all of the different plastics. If there is a will there is a way. Possibly a fee on the plastic makers and users that could be used to help start businesses that recycle plastic might be the incentive needed.
yes, its unclear what is recylclable sometimes.
more importantly, it should not be up to us as individuals. we are the consumers of the products produced. manufacturers need to be held to account. stop excessive plastic packaging.
Yes, it is misleading on items that can't really be recycled. So, mark items accurately, in order for consumer to properly recycle items.
There really should be several symbols, one for each level of recycling, and then a HUGE X to mark things that aren't recyclable at all.
Well, yes, it's obviously misleading if they're putting it on things that can't be recycled.
What the heck do smiley/frowny faces mean with this question?
Do whatever it takes to promote recycling!
I know that not everything put in with recyclables makes it to a recycling center. Perhaps that is why interest in recycling has wained.
The logo isn't misleading -- what we do with it is misleading.
Recycling logo is not misleading. Please don't waste time or money messing with it.
People who take the time to research information about recyclable materials do not rely on the marks on materials that they buy. We also do NOT buy things in plastic, if we can avoid plastic. But recycling in order to combat global climate change is really like trying to cure cancer with a band-aid. Truthfully, we need major changes in manufacturing and product transport. This will happen only when there are laws requiring these changes. Sadly it looks like this may not happen until it is too late. We already have microplastic in our drinking water!
Recycling numbers should be clearer, and all recyclable materials need to be mandated to be acceptable at all recycling stations.
Yes it's misleading because even if you see one on an item that doesn't necessarily mean it will end up getting recycled. Many items still wind up in landfills
My garbage company allows recyclable 1-7. If the 3-7 aren't recyclable then why should we be sorting them?! Why isn't there more of a focus on replacements or process to properly dispose?
Instead of forgiving student loans, perhaps we should reward more research and developments to address varies forms of pollution.
Them comes the next big recycling of solar panels! SMH
If an item is not recyclable then it should not have the recycle symbol. Those that do should receive a warning and then a fine if not corrected.
No but it can be abused
"Recycling Logo Misleading?", these morons have apparently have nothing better to do. Tell me, how did changing the logo for the Post Office in 1993 benefited anyone?