Plastic is a fast-growing segment of U.S. municipal solid waste, and most of it ends up in the environment. Just 9% of plastic collected in municipal solid waste was recycled as of 2018, the most recent year for which national data is available. The rest was burned in waste-to-energy plants or buried in landfills.

Manufacturers assert that better recycling is the optimal way to reduce plastic pollution. But critics argue that the industry often exaggerates how readily items can actually be recycled. In September 2024, beverage company Keurig Dr Pepper was fined US$1.5 million for inaccurately claiming that its K-Cup coffee pods were recyclable after two large recycling companies said they could not process the cups. California is suing ExxonMobil, accusing the company of falsely promoting plastic products as recyclable.

Environmental law scholar Patrick Parenteau explains why claims about recyclability have confused consumers, and how forthcoming guidelines from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission may address this problem.

Why do manufacturers need guidance on what ‘recyclable’ means?

Stating that a product is recyclable means that it can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the waste stream for reuse or in the manufacture of other products. But defining exactly what that means is difficult for several reasons:

• Different U.S. states have different recycling regulations and guidelines, which can affect what is considered recyclable in a given location.

• The availability and quality of recycling infrastructure also varies from place to place. Even if a product technically is recyclable, a local recycling facility may not be able to accept it because its equipment can’t process it.

• If no market demand for the recycled material exists, recycling companies may be unlikely to accept it.

What is the Federal Trade Commission’s role?

Public concern about plastic pollution has skyrocketed in recent years. A 2020 survey found that globally, 91% of consumers were concerned about plastic waste.

Once plastic enters the environment, it can take 1,000 years or more to decompose, depending on environmental conditions. Exposure through ingestion, inhalation or in drinking water poses potential risks to human health and wildlife.

The Federal Trade Commission’s role is to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and unfair methods of competition. Every year, it brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anticompetitive behavior and more.

The FTC publishes references called the Green Guides, which are designed to help marketers avoid making environmental claims that mislead consumers. The guides were first issued in 1992 and were revised in 1996, 1998 and 2012. While the guides themselves are not enforceable, the commission can use them to prove that a claim is deceptive, in violation of federal law.

The guidance they provide includes:

• General principles that apply to all environmental marketing claims

• How consumers are likely to interpret claims, and how marketers can substantiate these claims

• How marketers can qualify their claims to avoid deceiving consumers

The agency monitors environmentally themed marketing for potentially deceptive claims and evaluates compliance with the FTC Act of 1914 by reference to the Green Guides. Marketing inconsistent with the Green Guides may be considered unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Courts also refer to the Green Guides when they evaluate claims for false advertising in private litigation.

Currently, the Green Guides state that marketers should qualify claims that products are recyclable when recycling facilities are not available to at least 60% of consumers or communities where a product is sold.

How is the agency addressing recyclability claims?

The FTC is reviewing the Green Guides and issued a request for public comment on the guides in late 2022. In May 2023, the agency convened a workshop called Talking Trash at the FTC: Recycling Claims and the Green Guides.

This meeting focused on the 60% processing threshold for recyclability claims. It also addressed potential confusion created by the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, which often identifies the type of plastic resin used in a product, using the numbers 1 through 7.

Many critics argue that consumers may see the symbol and assume that a product is recyclable, even though municipal recycling programs are not widely available for some types of resins. Other labels use a version of the symbol for products such as single-use grocery bags that aren’t accepted in most curbside recycling programs but can be dropped off at designated stores for recycling.

The FTC has sought public comments on specific characteristics that make products recyclable. It also has asked whether unqualified recyclability claims should be made when recycling facilities are available to a “substantial majority” of consumers or communities where the item is sold – even if the item is not ultimately recycled due to market demand, budgetary constraints or other factors.

What are companies and environmental advocates saying?

Organizations representing environmental interests, recycling businesses and the waste and packaging industries have offered numerous suggestions for updating the Green Guides. For example:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urged the FTC to increase its threshold for recyclability claims beyond the current 60% rate. The EPA said that products and packaging “should not be considered recyclable without strong end markets in which they can reliably be sold for a price higher than the cost of disposal.” It also recommended requiring companies’ recyclability claims to be reviewed and certified by outside experts.

• The Consumer Brands Association, which represents the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Plastics Industry Association and other commercial interests, called for more research into public understanding of environmental marketing claims. To help companies avoid making deceptive advertising claims, it urged the FTC to provide more detailed explanations, with examples of acceptable marketing.

• The Association of Plastic Recyclers encouraged the FTC to increase enforcement against deceptive unqualified claims of both recyclability and recycled content. It recommended providing stronger, more prescriptive guidance; publicizing specific examples from the marketplace of deceptive representations; and sending warning letters when companies appear to be making unsubstantiated claims. It also asked the FTC to maintain its current recyclability claim threshold at 60% and to update the Green Guides again within five years instead of 10.

• A coalition of environmental groups, including Greenpeace USA and the Center for Biological Diversity, urged the commission to codify the Green Guides into binding rules. They also argued that for goods that require in-store drop-off, companies should have to prove that processors can capture and recycle at least 75% of the material.

The FTC has not set a date for publishing a final version of the revised Green Guides. All eyes will be on the agency to see how far it is willing to go to police recycling claims by manufacturers in this $90 billion U.S. industry.

Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law & Graduate School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A bill known as the TRUTH in Labeling Act has been sitting before Congress since late 2023. If passed, it would require U.S. food manufacturers to add a second nutrition label to the front of product packages, in addition to the ones currently found on the back or side panel. It would also require the label to highlight any potentially unhealthy ingredients in the product, such as the amount of sugar, sodium and saturated fat it contains.

The proposed legislation would provide consumers with a standardized, easy-to-read and quick way to decide whether a product is a healthy choice. Should the bill, which is still in committee, become law, the front-of-package label would be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The current nutrition facts label, typically featuring more detailed nutritional information and found on a product’s side panel, would remain unchanged.

As a food safety extension specialist who works with farmers, entrepreneurs, manufacturers and the government to help bring healthy food to shoppers, I believe that consistent front-of-package labeling would greatly benefit consumers by offering a straightforward way to compare multiple products, helping them make more informed choices.

Even if passed, it will take time for the FDA to interpret the law and standardize the design and format. And it might be years before all food manufacturers are required to use the new label. In the meantime, more than 175 million Americans are overweight or obese, and with each passing day, that number grows.

Why the change?

The newly proposed legislation is the latest effort by lawmakers to educate the public about smart food choices. Congress began requiring standardized nutrition labels on food packages through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.

But in the 34 years since that first label appeared, the obesity rate has more than tripled; 40% of Americans are now obese. Another 31% are overweight, and diet-related chronic illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, hypertension and Type 2 diabetes are rampant. About 60% of U.S. adults – 130 million people – have at least one of these chronic illnesses.

All of these diseases are associated with consuming too much sugar, sodium or saturated fat – three key ingredients the front label will focus on.

Labels help shoppers make better choices

There’s another reason to require a second, easy-to-notice, easy-to-comprehend label. Only about 40% of Americans frequently read the existing nutrition facts label; some shoppers say they don’t understand it. A simpler label with a more direct message might help those consumers. In fact, some studies suggest front-of-package labels do assist shoppers in making smart choices.

Research shows that those who frequently read the current label tend to have healthier diets than those who don’t. For example, frequent readers are almost four times more likely than rare readers to meet the recommended daily fiber intake.

Now the bad news: Even the frequent readers met their fiber goals only about 13% of the time. That isn’t good, but it’s an improvement over the rare readers, who meet their goals a paltry 3.7% of the time.

For the record, the daily recommendation for fiber is 25 grams for women and 38 for men under 50; its slightly less for those over 50.

Some foods still exempt

It’s possible you’ve already seen some front-of-package nutritional labels on food products. But these labels are not regulated by the government. Known as the “facts-up-front” labeling system, it’s strictly voluntary and a choice of the individual food manufacturer, with label designs and formats provided by the Consumer Brands Association, a trade association representing the food industry. Only a small number of manufacturers have chosen to put these labels on their products.

That said, more research is needed to know how long-term behavior may change due to front-of-package labeling. But at least one food safety advocacy organization, while supportive of front-of-package labels, says the trade association’s facts-up-front system is less than optimal.

Even if the TRUTH in Labeling Act passes as currently written, some foods could remain exempt from the nutritional label requirement, including fish, coffee, tea and spices.

There is one caveat, however. If any product makes a nutritional or health claim on its package – including those that are normally exempt – then a nutrition facts label must be on it.

Kimberly Baker, Food Systems and Safety Program Team Director, Clemson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.