5 ms·

Clearly the resin identification code and the recycling symbol are causing consumer confusion due to the fact that almost everyone confuses them. The US Societ

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code

corpo_punisho 5y ago
Why were they allowed to change their symbol to resemble the recycling symbol?
- sp332 5y ago
  The recycling symbol is in the public domain. It's not even trademarked.
  - corpo_punisho 5y ago
    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.
marcosdumay 5y ago
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.
- asoneth 5y ago
  > 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 https://medium.com/@shengmorni/1970-ad0c58b5a9dc
q1w2 5y ago
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.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  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.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    This is a cynical opinion that isn't based on any facts. unless you have evidence of this "great resin code conspiracy"?
- asoneth 5y ago
  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.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    > 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.

corpo_punisho 5y ago

Why were they allowed to change their symbol to resemble the recycling symbol?

sp332 5y ago
The recycling symbol is in the public domain. It's not even trademarked.
- corpo_punisho 5y ago
  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.

marcosdumay 5y ago

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.

asoneth 5y ago
> 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 https://medium.com/@shengmorni/1970-ad0c58b5a9dc

q1w2 5y ago

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.

mywittyname 5y ago
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.
- q1w2 5y ago
  This is a cynical opinion that isn't based on any facts. unless you have evidence of this "great resin code conspiracy"?
asoneth 5y ago
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.
- q1w2 5y ago
  > 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.