ClientEarth calls for regulatory action on misleading plastic packaging recycling claims

New legal analysis by environmental law charity ClientEarth suggests that recycling claims on packaging can be misleading, leaving consumers with a false sense of environmental impact reduction. Its latest reports showed that inaccurate messaging on packaging regarding recycling capabilities could soon be legally challenged by consumer protection authorities. 

The legal analysis accompanies a report that examines plastic packaging waste collection rates in the UK. Out of 40 soft plastic packaging waste collected at Sainsbury’s and Tesco stores across England, 70% of those that reached a final destination were incinerated, either as fuel pellets or for energy recovery. 

ClientEarth lawyer Katie-Scarlett Wetherall sits down with Packaging Insights to discuss the surfacing of this “systemic issue” in the packaging sector.

“Right now, companies put too big an emphasis on recycling claims, which gives consumers the false impression that products and packaging with recycling claims are environmentally friendly. Companies should pay heed to consumer protection law and avoid using circular loop or triangular loop symbols.” 

“These, and statements such as ‘100% recyclable,’ imply that plastic is a circular material that can be recycled in an infinite loop, which is not true.”

Calling for stricter oversight

Plastic products in the UK bear recycling symbols and statements like “Recycle” or “Recyclable,” sometimes accompanied by green closed-loop icons. However, as ClientEarth lawyers stress, recycling “cannot make plastic circular — it only delays the disposal of plastic.”

The blanket use of the recycling symbols and statements can confuse consumers.“Companies should avoid using ‘green’ imagery and generic environmental catchphrases on plastic packaging, which may mislead consumers into viewing single-use plastic packaging as a sustainable choice,” stresses Wetherall.

“Companies have a legal obligation under EU and UK consumer protection law to ensure that consumers are not misled about the environmental impact of plastic packaging. Companies that continue to mislead could face lawsuits from affected consumers and action from regulators.” 

ClientEarth is urging UK regulators to scrutinize recycling claims made by supermarkets and manufacturers.

Last year, ClientEarth supported a legal complaint by environmental and consumer rights organizations against Danone for failing to implement a sufficient plastic pollution reduction strategy, as national law requires.

Wetherall notes that Danone, along with other food and drink giants, namely Coca-Cola and Nestlé, were using misleading claims such as “100% recycled” and “100% recyclable” on plastic water bottles sold across Europe.

ClientEarth points out that the statements related to plastics that are challenging or even impossible to recycle, such as flexible plastics, are also found to be concerning. 

Boosting global effort

Internationally, the Biden-Harris administration undertook an evaluation last year of the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol to determine whether it may be misleading to consumers and to consider potential alternatives.

“The US is certainly fertile ground for regulation and enforcement of misleading environmental claims,” Wetherall highlights.The Biden-Harris administration noted the widespread use of recycling logos on plastics that are not fully recyclable.

“In the last few years, a number of lawsuits have been filed against FMCG companies such as Coca-Cola and BlueTriton and retailers such as 7-Eleven and Walmart in relation to misleading claims about recycling, including 100% recyclable claims, including a landmark case by the Attorney General of New York against Pepsi for plastic pollution.” 

Last month, California’s attorney general Rob Bonta sued ExxonMobil in what environmental campaigners called “the single most consequential lawsuit filed against the plastics industry” in history. 

The lawsuit against the fossil fuel company claimed that the false solution of recycling was promoted to sustain fossil fuel demand despite knowledge of the environmental and human health crises caused by plastic production and pollution.

“Further investigations and litigation by other states are likely to follow. We’re likely to see the ripple effects of regulatory interventions in the US in other jurisdictions,” Wetherall comments. 

“Globally, there has been a clear uptick in the number of regulatory investigations for plastic recycling greenwashing, which we expect to continue. As consumer protection regulators co-operate at an international level, action by one regulator often sparks action by another.”

“We’re hopeful that the EU Commission will begin a coordinated enforcement action regarding the misleading recycling claims addressed by our legal complaint,” she concludes.