News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by swiley on Thursday September 09, 2021 @08:21AM (#28468841)
I hope they’re not confusing the resin symbols with the recycling symbol.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by asoneth on Thursday September 09, 2021 @08:51AM (#28469109)
Clearly the resin identification code and the recycling symbol are causing consumer confusion due to the fact that almost everyone confuses them.

The US Society of the Plastics Industry designed their resin identification code in 1988 and made it similar to the recycling symbol which had been in use since 1970, even though many of the plastics thus labeled were not generally recyclable.

According to wikipedia[1] they eventually changed the RIC "chasing arrows" to a solid triangle in 2013 to address consumer confusion, but I still see a lot of plastics sporting the chasing arrow symbol.

I hope efforts like California's succeed so that the recycling symbol can be reserved for products that can be recycled in practice. (i.e. there are more than a token number of municipal facilities that process that type of plastic into a reusable form)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by marcosdumay on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:18AM (#28469323)
By 88 there weren't many products using the recycling symbol on their labels. The resin identification symbols were the first ones to get widespread usage, and I imagine they used the arrows because they are about recycling, even if they don't mean "this product is recyclable".

The ideas about government policy on product labeling became popular a bit later than that, and the resin identification codes, together with food nutritional values were the main responsible for that.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by asoneth on Thursday September 09, 2021 @01:23PM (#28472182)
> by [19]88 there weren't many products using the recycling symbol on their labels.

My understanding[1] is that in the 1970s the paper industry was the first to adopt a three-arrow symbol for paper products that could be recycled and later a slightly different three-arrow symbol for products that were made from recycled paper products. These seem in alignment with consumer understanding of the symbol. I also recall seeing the three arrow recycling symbol on bins at school in the 1980s so it was certainly in use by that point.

> I imagine they used the arrows because they are about recycling

Had resin identification codes restricted their use of the three-arrow design to plastics that were widely recyclable or products made from recycled plastic then I would have no issue. But some of the resin symbols (e.g. 7) essentially mean "not recyclable" and that is obviously causing confusion to consumers because people keep putting them in the plastic recycling.

It's confusing enough that the recycling center near me provides the following guidance: "The numbers on plastics are not great indicators of whether something can be recycled in a typical recycling program. Our advice is to think about the shape of your plastics. If they are clean and empty plastic bottles, jars, jugs or tubs, they are what we are looking for!"

> even if they don't mean "this product is recyclable"

Using a symbol to mean the exact opposite of its conventional meaning seems liable to cause consumer confusion.

[1] https://medium.com/@shengmorni/1970-ad0c58b5a9dc

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by q1w2 on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:51AM (#28469667)
The Resin code was designed to help with recycling to determine what can be recycled.

It says so in the article you linked. It's the last column on the first chart.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by mywittyname on Thursday September 09, 2021 @10:37AM (#28470166)
In reality, it the resin code was a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers by the plastics industry to prevent consumers from making an informed decision to move away from plastic packaging on the grounds of it's bad for the environment.

Similar to how the junk food industry is all about telling people to "balance what you eat and what you do", and shrinking portion sizes while also selling "shareable" packs. They are trying to avoid customer ire and/or regulations against them.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by q1w2 on Thursday September 09, 2021 @12:52PM (#28471790)
This is a cynical opinion that isn't based on any facts.

unless you have evidence of this "great resin code conspiracy"?

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by asoneth on Thursday September 09, 2021 @01:45PM (#28472467)
The charitable interpretation is that their original intent of using the well-known recycling symbol around the resin code was to provide consumers with information to help them recycle more effectively.

However the fact that recycling programs (at least in my state) advise consumers to ignore the number and focus on the shape of the plastic means that (at least in my state) these symbols are not serving their intended purpose.

For example, many forms of polyethylene terephthalate are not recyclable even if the product is labeled with a RIC1/PETE symbol. In fact, the only time the RIC number is helpful to me is when confirming that a product is most definitely not recyclable. Of course, in those cases the use of the three-arrow recycling symbol to indicate a product's non-recycleability seems liable to confuse consumers.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by q1w2 on Thursday September 09, 2021 @05:27PM (#28474875)
> The charitable interpretation is that their original intent of using the well-known recycling symbol around the resin code was to provide consumers with information to help them recycle more effectively.

This isn't the "charitable interpretation" - this was the stated and official purpose of the symbols with the numbers.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by asoneth on Monday September 13, 2021 @02:29PM (#28514945)
The "charitable interpretation" is that the people involved in the decision truly believed their stated rationale. In that case the fact that the symbol has actually confused consumers in practice and has caused unrecycleable plastics to contaminate plastic recycling streams is simply an honest mistake.

The "uncharitable interpretation" is that it was a dishonest way for plastic manufacturers to label unrecycleable plastics with recycling symbols to confuse consumers into thinking a greater number of single-use plastics were recyclable than actually were recyclable with no consideration given to the difficulties this would cause for the organizations actually responsible for recycling the plastic.

Because I was not there I do not know whether the people involved were misguided or unethical or somewhere in between.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by corpo_punisho on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:01AM (#28469179)
Why were they allowed to change their symbol to resemble the recycling symbol?
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by sp332 on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:09AM (#28469236)
The recycling symbol is in the public domain. It's not even trademarked.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by corpo_punisho on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:15AM (#28469295)
That doesn't mean the plastics industry should be able to pass off their materials as recyclable. This is is a good move by California.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by Denvercoder9 on Thursday September 09, 2021 @08:38AM (#28468989)
The resin symbols were purposely made misleading to let consumers think that plastic was recyclable even when it wasn't. I don't think banning them would be that bad.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by q1w2 on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:52AM (#28469680)
No. They were made to help communities separate plastics into those that can vs cannot be recycled.

That's why they are on the plastic, and why they have the recycle shape.

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by LeifCarrotson on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:19AM (#28469332)
Who is "They" that you hope are not confused? Are you worried about the legislators and their expert advisors?

Certainly some experts at least are academically aware that U+2672 ♲, three clockwise arrows in a triangle, recycling symbol which indicates the product can be recycled or is accepted by curbside recycling pickup programs, is not the same as U+2676 ♶, three clockwise arrows in a triangle with a tiny number inside indicating LDPE resin, which typically means the product is not accepted for recycling.

But this is not common knowledge. I hope you're not confused into thinking that the average consumer knows the difference between the resin symbols and the recycling symbol!

Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by tantalor on Thursday September 09, 2021 @08:36AM (#28468970)
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by hiidrew on Thursday September 09, 2021 @08:45AM (#28469057)
smh this is some evil shit. damn plastic industry.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by gruez on Thursday September 09, 2021 @08:34AM (#28468956)
That's exactly what's happening. They're banning the use of the resin symbol unless it's also recyclable (by California standards), to reduce consumer confusion.
Re:California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that a... by recursive on Thursday September 09, 2021 @09:46AM (#28469623)
As a regular guy who sometimes decides to put things in the recycling or the trash, I absolutely am confusing them. I had no idea, until reading this comment, that those are separate things. Now I don't understand anything.