Q&A: How Phony “Chasing Arrows” Were Run Out of California

The “chasing arrows” are a popular symbol found on plastic products and packaging. Despite its association with recyclability, the triangle with a number inside indicates only the plastic resin type used in the product. It does not necessarily mean that the product is recyclable, contains recycled material, or will be recycled after it goes in the recycling bin. Plastics 1 and 2 (PETE and HDPE), both used in plastic bottles and containers, are the only plastics commonly accepted by recycling facilities, while the vast majority of other types are not recyclable in the United States. Displaying the chasing arrows on largely non-recyclable plastics has led to consumer confusion about what should go into recycling bins, which creates challenges for sorting materials at recycling facilities.

In 2019, California produced 77.5 million tons of waste, with a recycling rate of 37 percent across waste types. However, less than 15 percent of single-use plastic in the state is recycled. To increase transparency about what is actually recyclable and improve recycling rates, California recently passed SB 343, Truth in Labeling for Recyclable Materials, prohibiting the use of the chasing arrows symbol on non-recyclable products or packaging. We sat down with Nick Lapis, Director of Advocacy for Californians Against Waste—a nonprofit that advocates for waste reduction and recycling policies and programs—to discuss the new law and other initiatives to reduce plastic waste in California. The following interview was edited for clarity and length.

EESI: What are some of the biggest problems with the current plastic recycling system?

Lapis: Our recycling system, at least on the West Coast, was very reliant on shipping a significant part of our recyclables to China. We have access to the biggest ports in the country, and the United States imports a lot more than it exports because of the trade imbalance. As a result, the ships are literally too empty to go back and they need ballast. The cost of exporting garbage is cheap because they just need to fill up those containers with something. While some of the material was certainly recovered to create new products, the waste was mostly being landfilled, dumped, or burned. Oftentimes, it was being open burned for kitchen fuel, and a lot of it ended up in the ocean. So, the Chinese government implemented a series of reforms called Green Fence and National Sword, putting stricter and stricter limits on imported materials, until they said they didn’t want our garbage at all anymore.

That was a cataclysmic event in the waste industry, and for a while, the brokers were just finding other places to send it to, like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Then those countries also didn't want to deal with this huge flood of garbage and started cracking down themselves. That forced the United States, and California especially, to look at how we deal with what we’re generating.

EESI: Can you elaborate on some of the issues with the chasing arrows symbols on plastic packaging and how SB 343 addresses those issues?

Lapis: SB 343 is a bill that prohibits the use of the chasing arrows or the claim of recyclability on products that are not actually recyclable.

Some brands have been using the chasing arrows logo whether or not a product was recyclable. Consumers see the chasing arrows on packaging, assume that means it’s recyclable, and put it in the recycling bin. This causes contamination issues. Our recycling system can't deal with the plastic film and other stuff that gums up sorting facilities.

It’s also deceptive to consumers who think that they're getting an environmentally preferable product, and unfair to companies that actually use more sustainable packaging. Until SB 343 was passed, manufacturers didn't have much incentive to use more recyclable packaging. Now they have a choice: they can either invest in recycling markets and infrastructure to make sure that more types of material are getting recycled, or they can shift to more recyclable packaging.

EESI: What kind of momentum was needed to pass SB 343?

Lapis: We try to build a consensus and a coalition for issues over time. Advocates have complained about the chasing arrows for over 20 years. In the past decade, policymakers have started focusing on plastic pollution, which led to thinking about what is actually getting recycled and what is going overseas and getting thrown away. There is also a much bigger motivation now for the big garbage companies to advocate for cleaner feedstock because they can't keep offloading trash.

The Legislature also formed a commission to issue recommendations in response to China's National Sword. This was one of the unanimous recommendations of the commission, which helped to identify the issue as no-brainer for the Legislature. We ultimately partnered with the National Stewardship Action Council to co-sponsor the bill. It was nice having both organizations working together, and they did a lot to help build momentum for the issue and build a broad coalition, including a lot of local government supporters.

EESI: How does SB 343 complement other waste-related legislation that was recently passed in California?

Lapis: A lot of bills passed this year are intertwined. One overarching theme is being honest with consumers about recycling. You hear that in SB 343, with not using chasing arrows on things that aren't recyclable. A companion bill to SB 343, AB 1201, makes sure that things labeled compostable are really compostable and are not a contaminant in the composting system. Another bill, AB 881, prohibits cities and counties from counting the export of mixed plastic as recycling. As long as you can keep counting that as recycling, manufacturers don't have any motivation to reduce the amount of packaging they use, choose better forms of packaging, do green design, or create recycling markets.

Then there are a few bills about source reduction and waste prevention. Everybody in school learns “reduce, reuse, recycle,” but people forget that those are intended to be in order of priority: you're supposed to reduce and reuse before you recycle. One bill addressing source reduction upstream, AB 1276, says you have to ask for utensils, condiment packets, and straws when you get takeout rather than be provided with them systematically. There's also a bill that lets the state bottle bill program pay you to reuse or refill glass bottles.

EESI: How will SB 343 impact the plastic packaging and recycle industries in California and in the United States more broadly?

Lapis: What happens in California often affects the rest of the country. It's hard for a company to make something just for California because we're such a huge market. Hopefully, SB 343 will lead manufacturers throughout the country to make their products more recyclable, invest in recycling infrastructure, and buy back material to use as recycled content to close the loop on their own products.

EESI: What federal programs or policies support efforts to improve recycling measures in California?

Lapis: Usually, environmental policy comes from the states. When major policies like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act happen at the federal level, it's usually after states have taken action. The federal government will invest money in research and education and give grants to states, but they've never really mandated any kind of producer responsibility policies.

But I am excited about the federal Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act (H.R.2238/S.984). It has some producer responsibility ideas we’ve tried to get done in California and things that we've done effectively in California, like the bottle bill.

EESI: What's next for California in terms of addressing waste?

Lapis: Our focus is passing a ballot measure in November next year that would set up a producer responsibility program and give the state authority to regulate plastic packaging and single-use items, ensuring that manufacturers are taking ownership over their products’ end of life.

It also has a fee on plastic packaging proportionate to the recyclability of the product. This would be a long term, stable funding source for recycling and composting infrastructure, state parks and beaches, natural resource conservation, and other things that have never had a stable funding source in California. Finally, a chunk of money would go directly to local governments to offset garbage rates.

This article was edited and condensed for clarity.

Author: Valerie Nguyen