California’s Truth in Recycling law is expected to come into force on October 4, 2026. According to the bill, using terms that make packaging seem recyclable, such “‘ecologically friendly,’ ‘earth friendly,’ ‘environmentally friendly,’ ‘ecologically sound,’ ‘green product,’ or any other like term, or through the use of a chasing arrows symbol” is only allowed on materials that are readily recyclable in the state of California (FPF reported).
What is readily recyclable?
A packaging product is considered ‘readily recyclable’ if at least 60% of the people of California can recycle it through local programs. State agency CalRecycle assessed which products fulfill the criteria in a report published in April 2025. CalRecycle assessed many product types (e.g., ‘Magazines and Catalogs’, ‘Clean molded paper fiber’). Broadly put, it found Californians had access to recycling facilities for paper and board, glass, metal, PET plastics, and HDPE plastics.
What about everything else?
The law has the greatest effect on plastic packaging. The chasing arrows symbol is often used to denote polymer type, a practice many consumers interpret as signifying recyclability, and many products claim to be recyclable since some recycling technologies exist for those products even if they are not widely available or economical (FPF reported).
A coalition of packaging and food providers are suing the State of California arguing that the law infringes on the organizations’ first amendment right to free speech. According to the Flexible Packaging Association, “[t]he lawsuit… argues that SB 343 [the law] operates as government-imposed censorship, prohibiting product makers from informing consumers when their packaging is recyclable unless the material satisfies rigid and arbitrary regulatory criteria set by the state.”
Some polymers are only feasibly recycled through chemical rather than mechanical processes. Chemical recycling of plastics aims to convert plastic waste into monomers or other raw materials that are useful inputs for the chemical industry. Multiple reports have found that the technical feasibility, environmental benefits, and economic viability of chemical recycling are not sufficiently proven (FPF reported, here and here).
Reference
Michael J. Coren (May 12, 2026). “Why banning the recycling logo is progress in the fight against plastic waste.” MSN
Flexible Packaging Association (2026). “Broad Coalition of Farmers, Dairy Product Makers, Packaging Manufacturers, Restaurants, and Grocers Sue California Over “Speech Ban” Law That Undermines Recycling and Violates the First Amendment.”
Read More
Curtis Deacon (May 13, 2026). “California takes aim at the recycling symbol after decades of issues.” The CoolDown
