Greenpeace, cities and waste sector push for plastic label changes

A new Greenpeace lawsuit against Walmart Inc. over recyclability claims in its labeling of plastic packaging seems to signal renewed interest around a question that's not gotten much attention in recent years.

The environmental group's Dec. 14 lawsuit in California comes as organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors and some big names in waste management are similarly pushing for Washington to look in much more detail at recyclability marketing to consumers.

One idea they raise is for a rethink of the resin identification code, the triangle symbol on plastics packaging that some consumers mistakenly see as a marker of recyclability.

David Biderman, executive director and CEO of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), said he "absolutely" sees labeling questions getting increased attention, including in state governments, as recycling programs face challenging times.

His group and others pressed the Environmental Protection Agency in December to elevate labeling issues, as the EPA drafts the U.S.'s first national recycling strategy. SWANA explicitly asked for reviews of the resin identification code.

"It has been increasingly clear in the last few years that many consumers are confused about the labeling of packaging," Biderman said. "We haven't analyzed in any depth whether the companies are greenwashing but we would hope that government agencies would more vigorously review recyclability claims that are not accurate."

The argument from Biderman and others is that consumers are given mixed messages that are either intentionally misleading or simply confusing, so they wind up tossing too many questionable products into recycling bins.

A coalition of local government groups is telling EPA those confusing messages lead to more contamination of recycling streams and hurt the economics of their recycling programs.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties told EPA in a joint Dec. 4 filing to come up with national standards around recycling, especially for plastics, and to focus on labeling.

"Setting national standards on which plastics and other materials can be recycled and subsequently labeling those products correctly will reduce the local cost of administering [municipal solid waste] and recycling programs and reduce contamination," the groups said.

They noted, for example, that most local recycling programs have stopped accepting polystyrene, but consumers see "recycling triangles" or similar language on packaging and wrongly assume the packaging should go in the bins.

Waste Management Inc., which provides recycling services to 19 million residential customers in the U.S. and Canada, also urged EPA to address confusing labeling around plastics.

"The triangular recycling symbol on plastic packaging, for example, can be misleading in signaling to a consumer whether that material is recyclable," it said. "WM thus encourages EPA to pursue efforts to clarify the information conveyed by these labels to help reduce contamination in the recycling stream."

The company said plastics face challenges because the cost of recycling plastics often makes it more expensive than virgin resin.

Biderman said his group has not developed specific ideas around how to change the resin identification code but wants labeling to get more attention.

He and others note that the resin code, which is referenced in laws in 39 states, was not intended to officially convey recyclability, but they argue consumers interpret it that way.

There have been attempts to address that.

In 2013, the resin code symbol was changed from a chasing arrows design to a solid triangle to try to reduce confusion, and plastics industry guidelines say the code should be hidden on packaging and not used for recyclability, according to the website of How2Recycle, a program of the recycling oriented nonprofit GreenBlue.

But others say it's still confusing to the public.

SWANA, for example, highlighted the resin code as a priority in a news release. It said it wanted to work with the Biden administration and EPA on "reducing reliance on the confusing resin identification codes for plastic," among other measures.

Biderman noted that the Federal Trade Commission is typically the lead agency around marketing claims for recyclability, and he urged FTC to consider those claims to bolster recycling as part of the Biden administration's plan to prioritize climate change.

Similarly, the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment urged EPA to work with FTC on recyclability claims as part of EPA's national strategy.

It said the agencies should both work to "restrict marketing claims and logos around recycling to reduce the number of messages consumers must decipher."

The Greenpeace lawsuit takes a harder line, asking the California Superior Court in Alameda County to declare that Walmart's use of recyclability claims on its private label plastic packaging violates the state's consumer protection laws.

"Walmart knows that its customers are concerned about single-use plastics, and has been using misleading labels that falsely claim packaging is recyclable when it is bound for an incinerator or landfill," said John Hocevar, Greenpeace's oceans campaign director. "Until Walmart and other polluting corporations take responsibility for the damage their throwaway plastic is doing to our environment and our communities, the plastic crisis will continue to get worse."

The Bentonville. Ark.-based retailer disputed Greenpeace's lawsuit and said it had been in discussions with the environmental group for several months.

"We deny Greenpeace's allegations and intend to defend the company," Walmart said in a written response. "We previously reviewed these allegations and explained to Greenpeace that the product labeling complies with federal and state laws. Like many other retailers, we rely on labeling developed and validated by our suppliers and sustainability partners, including How2Recycle."

The Greenpeace lawsuit says Walmart should not label packaging and products in its private-label brands made from plastics 3-7 in the resin identification code, including polypropylene, polystyrene and vinyl, as recyclable.

It says those plastics lack viable markets to be recycled into new products, similar to claims Greenpeace made in a February report looking at problems facing U.S. materials recovery facilities.

The lawsuit gave examples of packaging that it said violated marketing claims allowed under FTC's Green Guides, and said violating FTC guidelines is also a violation of California law.

Greenpeace did not disclose plans for other lawsuits but Hocevar expects labeling issues to get more attention from policymakers and businesses. Greenpeace has been in touch with other businesses and hopes the lawsuit would set a precedent.

"There are at least a couple dozen major corporations that seem to be misleading their customers about the recyclability of their products and packaging in a similar manner to Walmart," he said. "While we do not have immediate plans to reveal additional lawsuits against plastic polluters, we are exploring all options on how to ramp up pressure on companies that use the false notion of recyclability as a way to continue producing cheap throwaway plastics."