Posted by BeauHD from the misleading-labels dept.
Most kitchen products use plastics that are practically unrecyclable, yet a trade group representing major brands is pressuring regulators to allow companies to label such items as “recyclable,” even though they are likely to end up in landfills. Experts warn this could worsen the plastic crisis and misleading labels could further deceive consumers about the true recyclability of these products. ProPublica reports: The Consumer Brands Association believes companies should be able to stamp “recyclable” on products that are technically “capable” of being recycled, even if they’re all but guaranteed to end up in a landfill. As ProPublica previously reported, the group argued for a looser definition of “recyclable” in written comments to the Federal Trade Commission as the agency revises the Green Guides — guidelines for advertising products with sustainable attributes. […] ProPublica contacted the 51 companies on the association’s board of directors to ask if they agreed with the trade group’s definition of “recyclable.” Most did not respond. None said they disagreed with the definition. Nine companies referred ProPublica back to the association.
The Green Guides are meant to increase consumer trust in sustainable products. Though these guidelines are not laws, they serve as a national reference for companies and other government agencies for how to define terms like “compostable,” “nontoxic” and “recyclable.” […] The current Green Guides allow companies to label products and packaging as “recyclable” if at least 60% of Americans have access to facilities that will take the material. As written, the guidelines don’t specify whether it’s enough for the facilities to simply collect and sort the items or if there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the material will be made into something new. “The Green Guides have long set forth that items labeled as ‘recyclable’ are those which are capable of being recycled,” [Joseph Aquilina, the association’s vice president and deputy general counsel] told ProPublica. “Any characterization suggesting Consumer Brands is pushing for a ‘looser definition’ is false.” But the association seemed to disregard what the FTC said in a separate document released alongside the guides, which states that a truthful recyclable claim means that “a substantial majority of consumers or communities have access to facilities that will actually recycle, not accept and ultimately discard, the product.”
In its comments to the FTC, the association pushed back on that idea. The U.S. recycling system is decentralized, and manufacturers have no control over economic factors that might lead a recycler to change its mind about how it handles a certain type of plastic, the association wrote, adding that it was unrealistic to force brands to predict which products will be “ultimately recycled.” The association represents sellers and will naturally seek more flexibility in its positions, Jef Richards, a professor of advertising and public relations at Michigan State University, said in an email. The “problem with defining ‘recyclable’ as anything that MIGHT be recycled is that I seriously doubt that’s how consumers define it.” When consumer expectations fail to match what the advertiser is saying, “consumers are being deceived,” he added. That deception has concrete impacts: Plastic bags that mistakenly end up at recycling centers can gum up machinery, start fires and contaminate bales of paper, which then can’t be recycled. The problem could get worse if the FTC listens to the Consumer Brands Association and allows companies to market plastic bags as “recyclable.”
All science is either physics or stamp collecting. — Ernest Rutherford
Working…
