The recycling system in the United States is under intense scrutiny—and deservedly so. The latest swipe can be found in the powerful Netflix documentary, Buy Now, which delivers a searing critique of how our consumer culture is devastating the planet.
Its brief examination of recycling reveals an unsettling truth: for decades, consumers have been misled into believing that the ubiquitous chasing-arrows logo on plastics guarantees recyclability.
We’ve been encouraged to feel good about tossing those items into our bins, reassured that we’re helping the planet. But the reality is sobering: only about 5% of plastics that could be recycled actually are. The rest? They end up in landfills, incinerators, or—worst of all—polluting ecosystems and oceans after being shipped overseas for ineffective sorting.
California State Senator Ben Allen, Author of SB-54, The Plastic Pollution Reduction and Producer Responsibility Act, talks about the wholesale overhaul needed for recycling.
This systemic failure is fueled by the mislabeling of plastics. As the truth about these deceptive practices comes to light, public disillusionment with recycling has grown. While this backlash is understandable—especially in relation to plastics—it’s crucial that we don’t abandon the entire system. There are elements of recycling that are working and can work even better if we focus on the right strategies.
For example, markets for recycled aluminum, glass, cardboard, and paper remain functional and reliable. In the realm of plastics, only two types—PET (e.g., water bottles) and HDPE (e.g., milk jugs and detergent bottles)—have viable end markets. The rest has no place in the recycling bin. Flexible plastics, in particular, are a major source of contamination, derailing the efficiency of material recovery facilities.
A significant part of the problem stems from the chasing arrows logo. In 1988, the plastics industry began placing this symbol on nearly every product, regardless of its recyclability. Inside the logo is a Resin Identification Code (RIC), a number intended to guide recycling. Yet most consumers never received clear guidance on these codes. Numbers 1, 2, and 5 are recyclable in many systems; numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7 are not. Unlike the successful anti-litter campaigns of the 1970s, no widespread effort was made to educate the public on this crucial distinction.
The result? Decades of misinformed consumers unintentionally contaminating recycling streams, driving up costs and impeding progress.
Fortunately, momentum is building to address these challenges. Lawmakers, environmental advocates, waste haulers, recyclers, composters, and producers are finding common ground to create meaningful reforms.
In previous discussions, we’ve outlined the five essentials for fixing our broken system. Steps one (understanding viable end markets) and two (improved material separation techniques) are critical, but step three—simplifying labeling laws and educating the public—may have the most immediate impact.
Today’s misleading labels feed consumer confusion and erode trust. California’s SB-343, the “Truth in Labeling for Recyclable Materials” law, is a promising model. By early 2025, CalRecycle will issue its final report on what materials can legitimately carry the recycling symbol. The logic is simple: if a material isn’t being recycled at scale and isn’t economically or technically feasible to recycle, it will no longer bear the logo.
This clarity will empower consumers to make informed choices and reduce contamination at recycling facilities. Transparency is the foundation for restoring public trust and building a more effective system.
To truly succeed, we need a national approach. Recycling rules currently vary widely between municipalities, creating confusion and inefficiency. A standardized system would allow the same materials to be recyclable across the country, simplifying consumer participation and optimizing waste management operations.
Finally, a large-scale public education campaign, similar to the one those we ran 50 years ago, after the first Earth Day, are essential. Consumers must understand that recycling is not a panacea but one tool in the broader effort to build a sustainable future. Education can refocus attention on reducing waste, adopting reusable packaging, and supporting composting—equally critical elements of the sustainability equation.
Fixing recycling in the U.S. is no small task, but the stakes are far too high to give up. By simplifying labeling, aligning markets, unifying waste management practices, and educating the public, we can rebuild trust in recycling and transform it into a cornerstone of sustainable living. This is a challenge worth tackling—and together, we can achieve it.