Pillar 2 of Recycling 2.0: Solving Separation Anxiety

As states like California, Oregon, Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota roll out ambitious new waste management policies with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging, stakeholders are busy identifying major hurdles to achieving the numerous ambitious targets mandated. The intent of packaging EPR is to hold producers and distributors accountable for the proper end-of-life management of their waste. In simple terms, it's a carrot-and-stick approach that, if implemented effectively, incentivizes producers to eliminate unnecessary packaging and to use more recyclable or compostable materials.

Recycling 2.0 = Learning Lessons from the Past

One of the goals of implementing packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is to catalyze what is often referred to as "Recycling 2.0." This initiative aims to address several significant flaws in our current recycling system. In the introductory post of this series, we outlined the Five Pillars of Successful EPR—crucial lessons learned for making Recycling 2.0 effective.

In our first in-depth analysis, we examined the initial pillar: Begin with the End Markets in Mind. The essential takeaway is that just because something can be transformed doesn’t necessarily make it "recyclable." Recycling is economically viable only if there is stable market demand for the recycled material. Without it, the time, energy, and resources invested in producing that material are, paradoxically, wasted. 

Why Upgrading Our Waste Streams is Essential

The second pillar of effective Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) involves upgrading our waste streams. When remanufacturers create new products from recycled materials, they require those materials to be as "clean" as possible—meaning they need a uniform feedstock of just the items they're interested in. Viable end markets for recyclables cannot exist without highly efficient sorting mechanisms that supply recyclers with this clean feedstock. This necessitates improved sorting and separating of materials for recycling and composting.

The Great Plastics Problem

The crucial task of separating waste, be it household recyclables or compostable materials begins with each of us. But due to vast amounts of greenwashing, labeling confusion, and differences in how various municipalities manage waste, consumer confusion about what belongs where when it comes to waste bins is far too high. Visits to waste bins have become pop-quizes on chemistry and physics. And far too many of us are failing. 

Those who work at Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) or industrial composting centers deal with the fallout of our failures. At MRFs, high-value materials like aluminum, steel, cardboard, and paper are generally straightforward to process, unless significantly contaminated.

However, plastics pose a more complex challenge due to the diverse types used in packaging today. Some plastics, such as rigid plastics numbered 1, 2, and 5—which include most beverage bottles, milk jugs, detergent containers, and yogurt tubs—are widely recyclable and have strong end markets. In contrast, other plastics, identified as numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7, seldom have strong end markets, making them less viable for recyclers to sort.

Particularly problematic are flexible plastics like shopping bags, produce and bread bags, snack wrappers, and pouches. These materials often tangle in machinery or mistakenly mix with other recyclables. Despite their critical roles in ensuring food safety and preservation, which are also regulated by law, these products frequently end up in household recycling bins. This confusion is exacerbated by the "chasing arrows" recycling symbol, which many consumers misinterpret. The number inside this symbol, known as a resin identification code (RIN), merely indicates the type of plastic, not its recyclability. There's similar confusion when it comes to materials that are considered compostable, as many consumers confuse the term biodegradable with something that can go in a compost bin. 

This misunderstanding leads to recycling and composting streams contaminated with non-recyclable and non-compostable materials, causing costly damage to sorting machinery, and downgrading certified organic compost into less desirable non-organic compost that is simply unacceptable for certified organic famers.  

California’s SB 343 and Its Impact

In California, SB 343, also known as the Truth in Labeling law, aims to address the misuse of the recycling symbol among other issues. Under this law, only materials that are commonly accepted for recycling—defined as being collected by programs covering at least 60% of the state's population—can display the chasing arrows symbol on their packaging. If a material meets this threshold, all Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the state are required to accept it. However, materials that do not meet this criterion cannot be labeled as recyclable. This law seeks to mainstream materials that are recycled at scale, ensuring a reliable feedstock for end markets and reducing consumer confusion.

While this could decrease consumer confusion and lessen contamination at MRFs, the 60% threshold might trap innovators of new materials in a vicious cycle. If these companies cannot initially demonstrate that 60% of Californians have access to recycling their materials, they cannot label them as recyclable. Without the recyclable label, reaching the required threshold becomes increasingly challenging. It is crucial for regulators to consider strategies that provide a clear pathway for innovative recyclable materials to enter the market.

The Innovation Challenge in Food Packaging

Innovation in food packaging, particularly, is not an overnight endeavor. Today's average potato chip bag is a scientific marvel developed over decades. What appears to be merely a plastic bag is actually composed of multiple layers, each engineered specifically to preserve freshness for years. Its complexity renders it nearly impossible to disassemble for recycling, even if it were easily sorted. This challenge extends to many of the flexible films and plastics used in food packaging.

Besides the issues of material complexity and sorting difficulty, food-contact packaging often creates recycling challenges due to food residues left on the packaging. This obstacle fuels the push for designing food-contact packaging that is compostable, aligning with the stringent standards of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, like those in California. While food residue complicates recycling, it is advantageous for composting. So, can all food packaging be made compostable? While a "space race" in the food packaging industry is underway as innovators tackle this engineering challenge, the real difficulty lies in aligning the incentives among packaging designers, brands, legislators, composters, and end-users of the compost. 

Compostability and Regulatory Hurdles

As of today, serious challenges to compostable packaging could hinder innovation. Like most packaging materials, compostable packaging must meet legal requirements for food preservation and safety. This involves acting as a barrier against external factors that affect food quality, such as oxygen, water activity, light, and temperature, while also preventing microbiological contamination. Additionally, it must not contain chemical substances considered toxic. Defining what is "toxic" could itself be the subject of an extensive series.

Composting facilities are also subject to often stringent federal regulations. In California, another related law, AB 1201, has tightened the criteria for products labeled as "compostable." Under this law, products cannot be labeled "compostable" or "home compostable" unless they pass a specific certification process and are recognized as allowable agricultural organic inputs under the United States Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program (NOP).

There is a concern that potential toxins from additives, coatings, and other components in compostable plastics may leach through plant root systems into edible parts, posing a food safety risk. Although there are many types of compostable packaging, some inherently carry a greater risk of toxicity than others. Currently, the NOP classifies packaging as "synthetic," meaning it is not permitted as an allowable input for organic agriculture. According to AB 1201, this classification prevents packaging from being labeled as compostable unless the definition of an "allowable input" is revised.

The Path Forward for Compostable Packaging

AB 1201 outlined a potential workaround, stating that by 2024, CalRecycle, the agency responsible for overseeing California's waste management initiatives, would evaluate the feasibility of segregating organic waste suitable for use in organic agricultural applications (i.e., compliant with the National Organic Program or NOP) from non-compliant organic waste. Should this be feasible, CalRecycle could adopt a dual system for waste collection and sorting. In June 2023, CalRecycle surveyed 34 composting facilities to assess their ability to sort composting feedstock accordingly. Only one-third of the facilities believed it was possible, falling short of CalRecycle's required benchmarks and leading to the conclusion that this approach was not feasible. This sorting issue poses a significant threat to the development of compostable packaging in California.

Consequently, certain types of packaging, especially food packaging, face uncertainty regarding their compliance with SB 54. Designing these materials for recyclability or compostability appears equally challenging. It is unclear how food packaging will meet the 65% recycling and composting rate mandated by SB 54, given the current sorting dilemmas and other obstacles. Many industry stakeholders view this as the critical factor in determining the success or failure of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation.

Encouraging Innovation for a Sustainable Future