The U.S. recycling system is at a breaking point—and we are all losing faith.
In the Netflix documentary, Buy Now:The Shopping Conspiracy, a searing indictment of global consumerism, a brief segment on recycling hits like a gut punch: the chasing-arrows symbol that has appeared on plastic packaging for decades doesn’t actually mean “recyclable.”
It’s a fallacy we’ve all been living with.
For years, consumers have been led to believe that tossing anything with that symbol into the blue bin was an act of environmental good. But the truth is harsher: only about 5% of plastic waste in the U.S. gets recycled. The rest is landfilled, burned, or shipped overseas—often ending up in rivers, beaches, and oceans.
This is not just a systems failure. It’s a credibility crisis.
California State Senator Ben Allen—architect of SB 54, the state’s sweeping Plastic Pollution Reduction and Producer Responsibility Act—has called for a total overhaul. And it starts with facing the truth: mislabeling is wrecking the system.
When nearly every plastic container—from clamshells to chip bags—carries the recycling symbol, even when there’s no infrastructure to process them, it contaminates the entire stream. Most Americans don’t realize that only two plastic types—PET (#1, like water bottles) and HDPE (#2, like detergent jugs)—are reliably recyclable. The rest? Wishcycling at best. Greenwashing at worst.
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.
So how did we get here?
Back in 1988, the plastics industry began placing the chasing-arrows logo on products alongside a resin identification number. The goal was ostensibly helpful: label plastic by type. But there was no national education campaign, no standardization across municipalities, and no enforcement. The result was a generation of well-meaning consumers misled into sabotaging the very system they were trying to support.
It’s no wonder that trust in recycling has eroded. But this moment also presents an opportunity to reset.
In previous reset 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 3 of our five-part Recycling Reset—Truth in Labeling—is where real progress begins. Without it, everything else—end markets, sorting improvements, circular systems—falls apart.
Thankfully, California is taking the lead. SB 343, the “Truth in Labeling for Recyclable Materials” law, will take effect in 2025. It’s deceptively simple: if a material isn’t being recycled at scale, and isn’t economically or technically feasible to recycle, it can’t carry the recycling symbol. Full stop.
This clarity will have an immediate impact:
- It empowers consumers to make informed decisions.
- It reduces contamination and lowers costs for MRFs (material recovery facilities).
- And most critically, it begins to rebuild public trust.
But we can’t stop at state lines.
To truly fix recycling in the U.S., we need a national framework that harmonizes rules across cities and counties. Right now, it’s a patchwork of conflicting guidelines. What’s recyclable in Seattle might be landfill-bound in St. Louis. No wonder people are confused.
We also need a modern public education campaign on the scale of the 1970s-era anti-litter movement. One that doesn’t just sell recycling—but explains its limits. One that champions reducing, reusing, and composting as core parts of the equation.
This isn’t about nostalgia for the blue bin. It’s about building a system that works.
If we want to move toward a circular economy—one grounded in material truth, not marketing spin—then fixing the label is the place to start. The public is ready. They just need the truth.
And the arrows? Let’s make sure they finally point in the right direction.